Download invoice PDF

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

The existing annotations already disclose that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the file type, 'PDF', and the download intent, but does not explain any additional behavioral details such as response format, permissions, or potentially large file handling.

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 one short sentence with no redundant framing or filler. It states the action, resource, and output format efficiently and is easy to scan.

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 single-parameter download operation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what happens and what output is provided, though it could slightly improve by clarifying the response file behavior beyond just saying 'as a PDF file.'

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?

The only parameter, invoiceId, is fully described in the schema as a path parameter. The tool description does not add extra semantic context beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable since schema coverage is complete.

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 names a specific verb, 'downloads', the resource, 'invoice', and the format, 'PDF file', which makes the tool's core purpose clear. It is distinct from credit note and upload download tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named bokio_download_invoice_attachment.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent can infer that it should be used to fetch an invoice's PDF when a specific invoiceId is available. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over the attachment or credit note download siblings.

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