get_outstanding_questions

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It identifies the operation as 'Retrieve', which implies read-only, and adds context about the blocking nature of the questions. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects, return format, or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps typical of a simple getter tool.

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 two sentences long, with the first sentence front-loading the core action and the second adding necessary context. There is no redundancy or irrelevant detail, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, so the description need not explain return values in depth. It adequately covers the purpose, the domain meaning of 'outstanding backoffice questions', and the context of processing blocks. Minor omissions like pagination or response structure are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 already includes a fully described parameter (administrationId) with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. The mention of 'for an administration' slightly reinforces the parameter's purpose but not significantly.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and a specific resource 'outstanding backoffice questions', immediately clarifying the tool's purpose. It also explains what these questions are (raised by the accountant and requiring response before processing), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_missing_invoices or get_workflow.

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 when to use this tool: when there are outstanding backoffice questions that need a response before related documents can be processed. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to understand the appropriate scenario.

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