list_invoices

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

The description only repeats the basic read operation. The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is safe, but the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., ordering, pagination, or safety beyond implied read-only).

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence is meaningful and contributes to understanding.

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?

Given the simple tool (one parameter, no output schema, read-only annotation), the description covers the main purpose but lacks details about return format, ordering of results, or what 'recent' means. It is adequate 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 schema covers 100% of parameters (limit) with a clear description. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 clearly states it lists invoices, which is a specific verb and resource. It adds context about checking payment history for a customer, but does not differentiate from other list tools like list_payment_intents, which might serve similar purposes.

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 implies usage for checking customer payment history, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_payment_intents) or when not to use it. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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