list_invoices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only retrieval operation but discloses nothing about pagination, required company_id, filters, result limits, or response format. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the tool name already communicates.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, front-loading the core operation. It is appropriately concise for a simple list action, though it borders on under-specification given the number of parameters and lack of annotations.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-phrase description is insufficient. The agent gets no context about the required company_id, how filters interact, pagination behavior, or what the return value looks like. The schema helps document parameters, but the overall tool context remains thin.

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 already describes 6 of 8 parameters (company_id, partner_id, date range, statuses), so the description does not need to repeat them. However, limit and offset lack descriptions, and the description adds no guidance about parameter combinations or required filtering behavior. The score stays at the baseline because schema coverage is moderately high but not complete.

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 the operation clearly: '請求書一覧を取得' means 'retrieve invoice list.' The verb and resource are specific, and it is distinguishable from create_invoice by the retrieval/list semantics. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other list-type siblings like list_deals, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb/resource combination, providing no practical routing information for an agent choosing among many sibling tools.

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