ghl_invoice_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context such as the endpoint, OAuth scopes (invoices.readonly), and version header, which are not in annotations. No contradictions found.

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 concise (4 lines) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, endpoint, version, OAuth scopes. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 simple nature of a get-by-ID operation, the description provides sufficient context including endpoint, OAuth scopes, and version. No output schema exists, but that is acceptable. It covers key aspects for a developer to use 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?

Input schema covers all 3 parameters with descriptions and examples (100% coverage). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions 'by invoice id' which is already in the schema's invoiceId description.

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 'Get invoice' and 'API to get invoice by invoice id', using a specific verb ('get') and resource ('invoice'). Among siblings like ghl_invoice_create, ghl_invoice_delete, etc., the purpose is distinct and unambiguous.

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 implies usage (get an invoice by ID) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied by the naming convention, but not stated.

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