list_invoices

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description adds value by disclosing scope ('including drafts'), the saved-view default behavior, and an honest caveat that 'date-range boundary semantics and accounting recognition dates are not established.' No contradiction with annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with purpose and usage, but the third sentence is telegraphic and confusing ('Check period, other saved filters and complete;'). The caveat content is valuable, but this dangling phrasing hurts readability and undercuts the structure.

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 read-only tool with 4 optional parameters, an output schema, and rich annotations, the core essentials are covered: call modes, no-filter default, and known unknowns. However, pagination semantics ('one invoice page' — page size, how to advance) and explicit routing vs the get_invoice sibling are left open, and the cryptic caveat sentence muddies the precondition to 'complete.'

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by defining the valid combination pattern ('year+month OR both ISO dates'), which the schema's individually nullable properties do not convey. Per-parameter meaning still mostly relies on the schema's property descriptions, so it does not reach 5.

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 specific verb+resource ('Read one invoice page') and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('including drafts') that distinguishes it from the singular get_invoice sibling. However, it never names sibling alternatives explicitly, so it does not fully earn a 5.

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 first line gives a direct calling rule ('Supply year+month OR both ISO dates') and the second sentence explains the no-filter fallback ('Without filters, use the saved view'). This is clear usage context, but no alternative tools are mentioned or ruled out, so there are no exclusions as required for a 5.

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