Get invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by stating the response includes line items, payments and status, which conveys scope beyond a bare resource name.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The verb, object, and response scope are stated immediately, and the listed contents are the only extra detail.

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 single-parameter read tool with strong annotations, this description is nearly complete. It doesn't mention error cases or whether status includes status history, but those are minor gaps relative to the tool's simplicity.

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% and the only parameter, invoiceId, is self-explanatory from its name and description. The description doesn't add syntax details, but none are necessary; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a clear verb with a specific resource and lists what's included in the response ('line items, payments and status'). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools and the settlement/attachment/credit-note variants, although it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it differs from.

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 its usage — it fetches a single invoice by ID, which naturally contrasts with list_invoices and download_invoice. However, it doesn't explicitly guide the agent on when to choose this over get_invoice_settlement or list_invoice_payments, leaving some inference needed.

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