Get Invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful context about the result scope ('summary stats on outstanding and overdue amounts') but does not reveal further behavioral details such as pagination, limits, or filtering semantics.

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 two sentences with no waste. It leads with the action and object, then gives a direct usage condition. Every word 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?

For an optional-parameter, read-only tool with complete schema coverage and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It characterizes the return content broadly and gives use cases, and the lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the mention of summary stats. A more detailed output description would help but is not necessary for safe invocation.

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% description coverage, with each parameter (search, status, contact_id) already explained. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get invoices the user has raised') and adds scope by including summary stats on outstanding and overdue amounts, which distinguishes it from bills and estimates. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative like get_recurring_invoices, so it stops just short of a 5.

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?

It provides explicit trigger context: 'Use when user asks about invoices, outstanding payments, or money owed to them.' This gives the agent a clear sense of when to select the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or compare it with related tools like get_aged_debtors.

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