List sales invoices

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions it lists invoices and the available filters, but it doesn't confirm read-only behavior, describe the response structure, or explain pagination behavior beyond what the schema implies. The 'posted/draft' wording is slightly ambiguous compared to the listed statuses, but overall it gives moderate behavioral context.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('List posted/draft sales invoices') and then efficiently compacts the optional filters. No words are wasted.

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 has 8 parameters, all documented, but no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the core listing and filtering capabilities adequately; however, it doesn't specify the return type or any additional usage context like paging, which is left to the schema. Given the simplicity of a list operation, this is reasonably 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each of the 8 parameters having a description. The tool description summarizes the filter concepts in natural language but doesn't add meaning beyond the existing parameter descriptions, so a 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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clear resource 'sales invoices', and further specifies 'posted/draft' and the filtering dimensions (customer number, status, date range, unpaid balance). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like bc_list_sales_orders and bc_get_sales_invoice.

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 provides clear context: this tool lists sales invoices in bulk with optional filters. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as bc_get_sales_invoice for single invoices, but the plural 'invoices' and filter options make its role clear.

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