List invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; 'list' signals a read operation, and the filter phrase indicates behavior. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, whether unfiltered means all invoices, or the response shape, leaving clear gaps.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the action and all filters are front-loaded. Every part earns its place.

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 and all parameters are named, but with no output schema and no sibling differentiation, the definition omits return format, default scope, and pagination/ordering behavior. Functional enough for a basic call, but not fully 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?

The description maps all four parameters to meaningful filter categories and adds 'issue-date range' context for to/from. With schema coverage at 50%, client and status receive no additional meaning beyond their parameter names/enum, so it partially but does not fully compensate.

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?

States the verb 'List' and the resource 'invoices', and enumerates the filtering dimensions (status, client, issue-date range). It is clear on its face, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like invoice_get or invoice_summary.

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 'optionally filtered' phrasing implies the tool is for fetching multiple invoices and can be narrowed by criteria, but it does not state when to prefer this over invoice_get (single invoice) or invoice_summary (aggregates), nor give exclusions.

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