get_invoice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but does not describe any behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID is invalid. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted wording, and it directly communicates the essential information without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. It covers the basic action and parameter intent, and the output schema likely handles return values. However, without annotations and with minimal behavioral details, it could be more comprehensive for a retrieval tool in a financial context.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It mentions 'by ID' to clarify the purpose of the 'invoice_id' parameter, but does not provide details on format, constraints, or examples. With only one parameter and low schema coverage, this offers some compensation but remains basic.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a single invoice by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_invoices' by specifying retrieval of a single item. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools like 'get_customer' or 'get_product', which follow the same pattern.

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 usage when needing a specific invoice by its ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_invoices' or other retrieval tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, error conditions, or comparisons with siblings, leaving usage somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.

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