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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the sorting order ('worst first'), the separation of delivered-late items, the inclusion of value at risk per currency, and the refusal condition for references without a schedule. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, but as a report this is implied. It also does not cover rate limits or auth, but for a report tool the disclosed behaviors are meaningful and go beyond a generic 'get late items'.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add a key constraint. There is no filler or redundant phrasing. Every sentence earns its place—the first defines what the tool returns and how it is organized, the second states an error condition. This is model-efficient.

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 there is no output schema, the description must explain the return structure. It does: it says the result lists deliverables with value at risk, separates delivered-late items, and is sorted worst-first. It also covers the refusal condition. However, it does not mention what happens with empty results, pagination behavior (though the limit parameter implies it), or the exact format of currency values. These are minor gaps for a report tool, so it is fairly complete but not exhaustive.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not add any additional parameter-level guidance (e.g., format hints, interdependencies, or defaults beyond the schema). It does not repeat or elaborate on the parameters, so it adds no extra value over the schema.

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 what the tool does: it lists overdue deliverables ('every deliverable still owed past its due date') as of a given date, with specific ordering ('worst first') and grouping ('delivered late kept apart'). It also includes value at risk per currency, which adds specificity. This distinguishes it from siblings like delivery_schedule_list (which lists schedules) and deliverable_status (which likely shows individual status), so an agent can tell them apart 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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies its use for checking lateness or slippage, but there is no 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' guidance. The refusal condition (reference with no schedule) is a constraint, not usage direction. So it relies on the agent to infer from the purpose, which is a moderate level of guidance.

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