proforma_invoices_pdf

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 discloses the return format (base64-encoded binary data) and a hard requirement ('Requires Pro plan'). However, it does not describe whether this is a read-only operation, response size limits, or what happens on a non-existent UUID. For a download tool, the disclosed return format and plan requirement provide meaningful but partial context.

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. Every clause adds value: the verb, resource, return format, and access requirement. This is optimal conciseness.

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 straightforward download tool with 2 well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential use case. The base64 format disclosure is helpful. The main gap is lack of error/behavioral detail (e.g., what happens for expired/non-existent invoices), but the tool's simplicity keeps the completeness bar reasonable.

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%, with uuid and companyId both described in the schema. The description adds the 'Requires Pro plan' constraint and the base64 return format context, which complements the schema. The 'companyId overrides configured default' nuance is schema-provided, so the description adds limited additional parameter depth but supplements with return-format and access requirements.

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 the verb ('Download'), the resource ('PDF of a proforma invoice'), and the output format ('base64-encoded binary data'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like delivery_notes_pdf or receipts_pdf by the explicit 'proforma invoice' resource naming.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool (when needing the PDF of a proforma invoice, as opposed to create/list/update/delete siblings for the same resource). No explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, but the resource scope is clear.

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