merit_list_purchase_invoices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly signals a read-only listing operation, names the underlying POST endpoint, and discloses the important max-3-months constraint and dateType behavior. It does not mention pagination, response shape, or authentication needs, but these are minor gaps for a list operation.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, then constraints, then sibling disambiguation. Every sentence carries useful information, with no filler or redundancy beyond acceptable reinforcement of schema details.

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 provides the endpoint, required period constraints, dateType meanings, and a sibling distinction. With no output schema, return shape and pagination are not described, but for a straightforward filtered list operation the description plus full parameter schema coverage is enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents every parameter. The description repeats periodStart/periodEnd format and dateType meaning but adds no new semantic value beyond the schema. The unPaid parameter is only explained in the schema, not in the description, which is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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'), a clear resource ('Merit Aktiva purchase invoices'), and a scope ('for a period'). It also names the endpoint and explicitly distinguishes itself from merit_list_purchase_orders, so an agent can differentiate it from the most confusable sibling without opening the schema.

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 explicitly identifies the key alternative, merit_list_purchase_orders, and the condition that separates them ('waiting-approval'). It also provides practical usage constraints like the 3-month maximum period and dateType semantics. It does not give exclusion guidance for single-invoice retrieval, but that is reasonably inferable from the sibling name merit_get_purchase_invoice.

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