Get unpaid invoices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the crucial caveat that it scans only the most recent invoices (default 50) and filters on balance, so older unpaid invoices can be missed. It also names the sort order and derived fields. It stops short of stating read-only status explicitly, auth requirements, or whether results are paginated beyond the scan cap.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the result set and ordering, the second gives the trigger scenario, the third exposes the scan-limit behavior. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully compensates by naming the derived return values (days overdue, total outstanding) and the scan-window behavior. What remains thin is the read-only assumption and any pagination beyond the limit cap, but for a single-parameter list tool this is close to complete.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents that limit controls how many recent invoices are scanned. The description repeats that same 'scans the most recent invoices (default 50)' semantics rather than adding new meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list invoices) plus the exact filter (status past_due / awaiting_payment, balance owing), the sort order (oldest-due first), and the returned fields (days overdue, total outstanding). Nothing about the tool's scope is left ambiguous, and it is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (jobs, clients, schedule, quotes).

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?

Gives an explicit use case with an example question: 'Use for accounts-receivable questions like

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