ghl_invoice_list

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds OAuth scopes (invoices.readonly) and pagination behavior, which are beyond the annotations. 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 very concise, with only 5 lines that front-load the purpose, provide endpoint and scope, and give pagination guidance. Every sentence is necessary and no fluff.

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 is sparse for a tool with 12 parameters including many filters (search, status, date range, sorting, payment mode). It does not summarize common use cases or hint at the response format, which is needed since there is no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the pagination parameters (limit, offset) and their usage for paging through results, which is not fully clear from schema descriptions alone.

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 'List invoices' and specifies the endpoint and OAuth scope. It implies retrieval of multiple invoices, but does not explicitly differentiate from the single invoice retrieval tool (ghl_invoice_get) among siblings.

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 mentions pagination parameters and how to use them ('pass them to page through full result sets'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_invoice_get or ghl_invoice_search. Filtering capabilities (search, status, date range) are not highlighted.

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