get_invoices_out

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List', which implies read-only, but does not disclose any further behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, ordering, required permissions, or whether the list includes both paid and unpaid invoices. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or access 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 one concise sentence with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and immediate resource clarification.

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?

Despite the simplicity of the tool, the description lacks key contextual information. Without an output schema, it does not describe the return structure or fields of the invoice list. It also does not mention any filtering or default behavior beyond what the schema implies. Given the sparse description and no annotations, the tool is not fully contextualized for an agent.

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 provides 100% coverage for limit, offset, and search parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, 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 'List sales invoices' with the Russian equivalent 'счета покупателям', making the action and resource unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from create_invoice_out and other get tools by explicitly specifying the resource (sales invoices).

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 its usage as a read/list operation for sales invoices, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_documents or search_assortment. No exclusions or alternative tool references are made.

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