List supplier invoices

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It does add that paging and free-text filtering are supported, which is useful, but it adds no deeper behavioral context such as authentication, sorting, defaults, or rate limits.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action and immediately communicates the two key operational features, paging and free-text filtering. There is no wasted or redundant text.

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?

This is a low-complexity read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and annotations that already establish its safety profile. The description is sufficient for a typical agent to invoke it correctly, though it would benefit from a brief clarification relative to the similarly named sibling list_invoices.

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%: page, query, and pageSize are already described in the input schema. The description's mention of paging and free-text filtering maps to those parameters but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 resource and action: listing supplier invoices, and mentions paging and free-text filtering. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like bokio_list_invoices or bokio_get_supplier_invoice, leaving the reader to infer the difference from the name.

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 the tool should be used when a paginated, filterable list of supplier invoices is needed. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to use this versus the regular invoices list or getting a single supplier invoice, and does not name any alternatives or exclusions.

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