zenoti-invoices-get

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state that the operation is read-only, idempotent, or safe. It also does not mention any potential errors (e.g., invalid invoice_id) or authentication requirements.

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 extremely concise (3 words), which is good for quick reading but sacrifices necessary detail. It does not waste words, but the minimalism prevents it from being 'optimal' – it could include a short phrase about what 'details' entails without bloating.

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 simplicity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not specify the expected return format, whether it returns a single invoice or a list, or how to handle errors. Sibling tools for invoices imply actions like closing or confirming, so context on when to get before acting is missing.

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 input schema has one parameter 'invoice_id' with no description (0% schema coverage), and the tool description adds no explanation. The agent is left to guess the format, source, or example value for invoice_id. This is a significant gap for a single required parameter.

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 specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'invoice details', clearly indicating the tool retrieves invoice information. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'zenoti-invoices-close' and 'zenoti-invoices-confirm' by implying a read operation. However, 'details' is vague and could be more precise (e.g., 'full invoice data').

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it does not state that this is for fetching a single invoice by ID versus listing all invoices (which is covered by a different tool).

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