proforma_invoices_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It states this is read-only listing and returns paginated results, which conveys the safe, non-destructive nature. However, it doesn't disclose default pagination values (which the schema does cover for page/limit), ordering defaults, or any company-selection behavior beyond 'selected company'. The pagination mention adds value, but more context on defaults or scoping behavior would strengthen this.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that covers purpose, scope, filtering capabilities, and return behavior. No wasted words, and it fits an appropriate length for a list endpoint. Could mention pagination defaults but it's already efficient.

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 read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage, all 10 optional parameters, and no required fields, the description covers the essential behaviors: scope, filters, and pagination. With no output schema and no annotations, it does enough to define what the agent should expect. The main gap is not listing which status enum values exist, but that's documented in the 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'client' and 'search term' filtering vocabulary and 'paginated results' context but does not add meaningfully beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions. All 10 parameters are already documented in the schema with descriptions, so the description doesn't need to compensate.

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?

The description clearly states 'List proforma invoices' with specific scope ('for the selected company') and lists filter dimensions (status, date range, client, search term). This distinguishes it from related tools like proforma_invoices_get (singular retrieval) and invoices_list (for invoices, not proforma invoices). Slightly generic on the verb side but the resource + scope is clear.

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 when to use it (listing proforma invoices in the current company context) but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives such as invoices_list or proforma_invoices_get. It does convey the central context (company-scoped listing), but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance which would improve decision-making for an agent.

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