List Job Invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the operation without disclosing any behavioral details such as response format, pagination, ordering, authorization requirements, or error behavior. The link to external docs is not part of the description's disclosed behavior.

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 plus a documentation link, with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning a top score for conciseness and 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description is quite terse. It omits behavioral context like pagination, ordering, or required scopes, and relies on external docs. While adequate for a minimal viable description, it has clear gaps in self-contained completeness.

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 100% coverage and describes job_id as 'Housecall Pro job ID.' The description adds no further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'List', the resource 'invoices', and the scope 'for a specific job'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_invoices (which presumably lists all invoices) and get_invoice (which retrieves a single invoice).

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 invoices need to be filtered by job, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the full 'when not to use' guidance.

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