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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: output is split between still-outstanding and delivered-late items, ordered worst first, aggregated by currency, and references without a schedule cause refusal.

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?

Two sentences carry substantial information with no filler. The core meaning is front-loaded, and each clause adds a distinct useful fact: scope, ordering, currency aggregation, delivery-late separation, and the refusal condition.

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's moderate complexity, optional parameters, and absence of an output schema, the description provides enough context about result shape and error behavior to guide a call. It could be more explicit about the exact returned fields or refusal mechanism, but the annotations and well-described parameters cover the remaining safety and invocation concerns.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even without description-level parameter help. The description adds some context for the reference parameter by stating that no matching schedule is refused, but it does not substantially enrich understanding of the other parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states exactly what the tool reports: deliverables still owed past their due date, ordered worst first, with value at risk per currency, and delivered-late items kept separate. This clearly differentiates it from sibling list/status tools, which cover schedules or deliverables without the late/as-of focus.

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 the tool is for as-of-date lateness reporting and notes an edge condition ('A reference with no schedule is refused'). However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings like delivery_schedule_list or deliverable_status, so usage guidance is mostly inferred rather than stated.

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