growwer_download_withdrawal_invoiceDownload the invoice file associated with a withdrawal using its ID to retrieve the uploaded document when needed.
Use this when the user needs the invoice they uploaded for one of their withdrawals: returns the file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the result is a returned file; it says nothing about file format, behavior when no invoice was uploaded, or permission requirements. Useful but thin beyond the annotations.
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?
One sentence with the usage trigger front-loaded and no padding. The trailing 'returns the file' is slightly vague and could have carried more useful detail instead.
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 single-parameter read-only download tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The remaining gaps (what the returned file is, failure mode when the withdrawal has no uploaded invoice) are minor but real.
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 0%, so the bare 'id' string would be ambiguous. The description partially compensates by implying the id identifies a withdrawal ('for one of their withdrawals'), which is genuinely helpful disambiguation, but it gives no format or sourcing guidance.
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 names a specific verb (download/return) and resource (the invoice the user uploaded for a withdrawal), and the phrase 'invoice they uploaded' distinguishes it from platform-generated invoice tools like get_invoice_pdf. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, so an agent must infer the boundary from context.
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 gives a clear trigger condition: 'use this when the user needs the invoice they uploaded for one of their withdrawals.' That is enough to route a request, but no when-not guidance or explicit alternative (e.g. list_withdrawals to find the id) is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.