late_work_orders

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries the rest of the burden: it discloses output ordering ('most late first') and resolves the real default for as_of ('the day after the last production record'), which the schema leaves as null. It does not mention result limits or pagination behavior, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary result set and followed by the forward-looking complement and the default. Efficient overall, though the backtick-formatted parameter references make it slightly denser than it needs to be.

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?

For a read-only filtered query with an output schema already defining return shape, the description covers scope, ordering, and defaulting behavior adequately. The remaining gap is that result-count or truncation behavior is never mentioned.

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 only 50% (horizon_days has no schema description), and the description compensates by explaining horizon_days as the forward-looking due-date window and by supplying the effective default for as_of that the schema omits. It adds no detail on boundaries or the unit relationship, so not a 5.

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 defines the exact result set: orders past due and incomplete, plus orders due within horizon_days that haven't started or are waiting on material. That specificity implicitly separates it from the broader get_work_orders sibling, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope definition (this is the 'late and at-risk' view rather than a general order listing), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_work_orders or how the two complement each other. Nothing misleading, but nothing that routes the agent either.

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