proforma_invoices_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The one added behavioral fact is "Returns paginated results," which is useful but largely inferable from the page/limit parameters in the schema; nothing about ordering defaults or result shape is added.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose and company scoping front-loaded ahead of the filter enumeration. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 10-parameter list endpoint with no output schema, the description covers the essentials but is thin: it says nothing about default sort behavior, pagination defaults/max, or what each result entry contains. The rich schema compensates for most of the parameter side, leaving a modest gap.

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 ten parameters are already fully documented including formats (YYYY-MM-DD), enum values, and the companyId override. The description only restates which dimensions can be filtered, adding no semantics beyond the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("List proforma invoices") and scopes it to the selected company, so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not distinguish itself from closely-named siblings such as invoices_list or recurring_invoices_list, which is the only missing piece.

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?

Enumerating the available filters (status, date range, client, search term) implies when this tool is appropriate, but the description never states when to prefer proforma_invoices_get instead, nor any prerequisite for reading a list. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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