invoices_list

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses scope ('active company'), return shape ('paginated results with totals'), and filter dimensions. However, it doesn't disclose behavior for edge cases—e.g., what happens when companyId override is set, pagination limits beyond what schema states, or whether active company defaults apply silently. Lacks depth on read-side behavior like ordering defaults or total field semantics.

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?

Two sentences, both earn their place—first establishes the core purpose and capabilities, second details filter dimensions and return structure. No wasted words, front-loaded with the primary action. Slightly verbose in listing every status value within the description (already covered in the enum), but that redundant enumeration is minor.

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 list/query tool with 11 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers filters, pagination, sorting, scope default, and return structure (totals). Missing details like ordering default (desc) and limit cap (100) are already in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. The return 'totals' mention partially compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 description coverage is 100% (all 11 params documented in the schema). The description adds a valuable semantic layer by grouping filters into categories (status/direction/date range/client/search) and stating 'active company' default behavior that clarifies companyId override semantics. Enums clarify status/direction values. The description's grouping helps the agent map parameters to intent, exceeding the bare schema.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('List invoices') with explicit scope ('for the active company') and thorough enumeration of capabilities (pagination, filtering, sorting). Distinguishes from siblings like invoives_get (single retrieval), invoices_export_csv (export), and proforma_invoices_list (different resource type).

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?

Description states it lists invoices for the active company and iterates available filters, which clarifies common use cases (status, direction, date range, client, search). However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use this tool versus related alternatives (e.g., when to use export_csv vs list, or how it differs from proforma/recurring lists). Guidance is implied but not explicit.

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