list_debts

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that amounts are integer cents, which prevents unit errors. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only (only implied by "Read"), whether it returns all debts or one, or anything about pagination or failure modes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource fields and finished with the unit convention; nothing is padded. It is efficient, though the terseness edges into under-specification of scope rather than waste.

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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return structure, so the bar is low and it mostly clears it. Still, it leaves open whether this returns a single debt or the full list, and "contract assumptions" is unexplained, which matters for an agent deciding between this and upcoming_payments.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The added note that amounts are integer cents is genuinely useful unit context that the empty schema cannot convey.

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 gives a specific verb ("Read") and enumerates the data fields returned: principal, assessed charges, retained fees, contract assumptions. It is clear what the tool surfaces, but it never states that it returns a list of debts (as the name implies) or how it differs from siblings like upcoming_payments, so an agent cannot fully discriminate on description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling tools (simulate_plan, compare_strategies, record_payment, upcoming_payments) that an agent must choose between. Usage must be inferred entirely from the field names.

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