List invoices

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

The description adds pagination behavior and the optional status/contact filters, which are not present in the annotations. readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already cover safety, so the description does not need to restate them, and it does not contradict 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 compact sentence front-loads the operation and scope before the optional filters. No filler.

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 description covers resource, location scope, pagination, and optional filters—enough for basic selection. It does not describe the return shape or mention the single-invoice alternative, and with no output schema these gaps make it slightly less than fully self-contained.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate. It provides examples for status and indicates that contactId filters by contact, and 'pagination' hints at limit/offset, but it does not add detail for limit/offset semantics or the contactId format.

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 ('List'), resource ('invoices'), and scope ('for a location'), plus optional filters. It is distinguishable from sibling invoice tools by the list operation, though it does not explicitly name ghl_get_invoice as the single-record alternative.

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 clear context that this is the paginated listing endpoint for a location and names the available filters, so an agent can tell it is for retrieving collections rather than a single invoice. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over ghl_get_invoice or mention exclusions, leaving the comparison to be inferred from the names.

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