invoices_get

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the shape of the response (line items, payment history, events, attachments, ANAF submission details), which is meaningful since no output schema exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and key first, followed by a payload enumeration that earns its length because it substitutes for a missing output schema. No filler or restatement of the name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is returned and that lookup is by UUID. It omits error behavior for unknown UUIDs and cross-company access semantics, minor gaps rather than blockers.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with descriptions. The description confirms the UUID is the lookup key but says nothing about the companyId override or what happens if it is omitted, so it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get complete details for a specific invoice by UUID') and enumerates the payload contents, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like invoices_list or proforma_invoices_get, which would be needed for a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: fetch a single invoice when you have a UUID, versus the sibling invoices_list for enumerating. But no sentence states when to prefer this over invoices_events, invoices_attachments, or invoices_xml, which now appear partially redundant given this tool aggregates that data.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.