Deel Get Invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's safety burden is small. It adds the detail that invoices are contractor payment invoices, but offers no additional behavior (e.g., default limit, pagination, or source specifics) beyond vocabulary already in the schema.

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?

Two informative sentences plus a use-case sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place, though the second sentence is slightly redundant with the first.

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, idempotent tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it does and when to use it; the schema covers parameter details and annotations cover side effects. The only minor gap is not describing the response shape or clarifying how it differs from the non-Deel get_invoices sibling.

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?

Both limit and statuses are fully described in the schema with default and filter values, so schema coverage is 100%. The description only hints at the 'payment history' use case and adds no new semantic information beyond the schema.

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 action ('Get') on a well-scoped resource ('invoices from the user's Deel account') and clarifies that these are contractor payment invoices. It distinguishes itself from the generic get_invoices sibling via the 'Deel' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name or contrast that alternative.

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?

Explicitly provides use context: 'Use when the user asks about Deel payments, contractor invoices, or payment history.' This gives clear triggering conditions but does not state exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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