Get a single salesbook invoice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the detail that line items are included and shows the endpoint format, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination or response structure. This is sufficient given the annotation coverage.

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 short and to the point, but the first sentence repeats the tool title exactly. The second sentence and endpoint reference add valuable detail. Minor redundancy prevents a perfect score, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded.

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 simple read operation with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly. It notes the ID lookup and inclusion of line items, which are the key details. Without an output schema, a bit more about return format would help, but this is not critical.

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 describes both parameters fully (id as integer, administration enum with 'default'). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter semantics. The description does not enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('salesbook invoice'), and scope ('by ID, including all line items'). It clearly distinguishes this from other invoice-related tools by explicitly mentioning the inclusion of line items and the ID-based retrieval.

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 retrieving a single invoice with line items, but does not explicitly state when to use this over the many sibling tools (e.g., get_sales_invoice, get_salesbook_invoice_pdf). No exclusions or alternatives are named, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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