Get supplier invoice

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as error behavior, permissions, or return shape, but it is consistent with the annotations and sufficient for a simple fetch.

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 short sentence with no filler and front-loads the core scope. It is minimal but appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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 one-parameter, read-only fetch with complete schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is mostly complete. It does not describe the return value, but the resource name and singular scope make the expected outcome predictable.

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 supplierInvoiceId parameter is already described as a required path parameter. The description adds no extra meaning about the ID format or how to obtain it, but for a single-parameter read tool the schema is adequate.

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 action ('Fetches') and the resource ('one supplier invoice'), and the singular wording distinguishes it from list-style siblings such as bokio_list_supplier_invoices. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like bokio_list_supplier_invoices or bokio_get_invoice. The intended use is implied by the name and parameter, but the description does not state it.

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