List Wave invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the result ordering, the fact that only summaries come back rather than full invoice detail, and that scope is the pinned business. It does not mention pagination limits or default page size, which are left to the schema.

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?

Four compact sentences with zero filler: scope and ordering first, then filters, then return shape and the sibling pointer, then the AR tip. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-field detail is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds the return-shape summary and the get-invoice routing, leaving nothing essential missing for a filtered list operation.

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 88%, so the schema already documents formats, defaults, and the invoice_number contains-match rule. The description restates the filter set (status, customer, currency, date range, invoice number) and adds the OVERDUE/UNPAID pairing, which is closer to usage guidance than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list invoices) plus scope (the pinned Wave business) and a defined ordering (newest invoice date first). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling wave_get_invoice, so an agent can choose between them without opening either 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?

Gives explicit routing ("use wave_get_invoice for line items and payments") and a concrete when-to-use case ("For accounts receivable, list status OVERDUE or UNPAID"). Both the alternative and the selecting condition are named.

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