proforma_invoices_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what the response includes (line items, client info, calculated totals), which is helpful. However, for a read/get operation it doesn't disclose error behaviors (e.g., 404 for nonexistent UUID), auth requirements, or whether companyId overrides are needed, leaving meaningful gaps in behavioral transparency.

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?

Single efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and enumerates what's included. No wasted words, though it could arguably name the companyId scoping alternate behavior. Efficient but minimal.

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 simple 2-parameter get tool with no output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is reasonably complete for stating intent. However, with no output schema present, the description's list of returned contents (line items, client info, totals) is the primary signal about return value shape, and it's fairly coarse. For a get operation with no annotations and no output schema, this is adequately complete but not rich.

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%, so the schema already documents uuid and companyId. The description adds that it returns line items, client info, and totals, but adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond the schema. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers everything and no additional param detail is provided.

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: 'Get complete details for a specific proforma invoice' with explicit inclusion of line items, client info, and calculated totals. Distinguishes adequately from siblings like proforma_invoices_list (which by naming convention lists multiple) though it doesn't explicitly contrast, and from proforma_invoices_create/update/delete/accept/reject/cancel which are clearly different operations.

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?

The description implies singular fetch usage through the word 'specific', and the tool name pattern 'get' suggests retrieval, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. It doesn't state when to prefer this over proforma_invoices_list or when not to use it. The context is implied rather than explicit.

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