List subscription invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and side-effect profile are covered. The description adds only that results are paginated, which is genuinely useful but not rich; it omits filter behavior, default sort, or what happens when filters conflict.

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?

A single tight sentence with no wasted words and the pagination trait front-loaded. It is appropriately short, though borderline under-specified rather than truly concise.

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?

With 8 optional filter parameters (status, account, store_id, subscription_id, refunded, include) and no output schema, the description should at least hint at filtering capability and return shape. It mentions pagination only, leaving the agent to discover the filtering surface entirely from the schema.

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 75%, so the schema largely documents the parameters (include, store_id, subscription_id, per_page, etc.). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the coverage baseline.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('subscription invoices') with scope ('paginated list'), so the agent knows exactly what it fetches. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_subscription_invoice, generate_subscription_invoice, or refund_subscription_invoice, all of which operate on the same resource.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no conditions under which this tool should be preferred over get_subscription_invoice or list_subscriptions. It only restates the operation.

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