ghl_invoice_generate_number

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the endpoint (GET) and OAuth scopes, confirming it's a safe, idempotent read operation. No contradictions.

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 4 lines including endpoint and scopes, which is concise but could be streamlined. It front-loads the purpose, but includes implementation details (endpoint, OAuth) that may not be essential for agent selection.

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?

Given the tool is simple (2 params, read-only, idempotent), the description adequately covers purpose and the key parameter. No output schema exists, but the agent can infer the return type from the tool name. Sufficient for a simple query.

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 has 2 required params: altId (with description 'Location Id') and altType (enum, no description). The description mentions 'for the given location', which maps to altId, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 50% (altId described, altType not).

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 clearly states the tool generates an invoice number for a given location, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource 'next invoice number'. It distinguishes from sibling invoice tools like create, delete, list, etc.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like ghl_invoice_create. The description does not mention conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and endpoint.

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