Get a list of purchase invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results are paginated and include line items, which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not detail any quirks, rate limits, or response behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence repeats the tool title, but the second adds concrete scope (line items) and the third provides the endpoint path. Minimal redundancy, clear structure.

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 straightforward list operation with full parameter documentation and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is sufficient. It lacks details on default pagination behavior or return format, but the absence of an output schema and the simple nature keep the gap minor.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'paginated' and 'with line items', which does not further clarify any specific parameter. Thus the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('purchase invoices'), and scope ('paginated list of all purchase invoices with their line items'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_purchase_invoice by emphasizing the list and pagination, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_purchase_invoice or list_sales_invoices. It only states that it lists purchase invoices; there is no mention of prerequisites, filtering scenarios, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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