upcoming_payments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, and the description adds useful context that results are estimated and adjust for actual payments already recorded. However, it does not disclose permission requirements, rate limits, or other operational constraints. Since an output schema exists, return format does not need to be covered here.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It states scope and behavior efficiently and does not waste the agent's attention.

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?

The tool is simple with two optional parameters, and the output schema covers return values. However, because schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain 'as_of' or the default day window, an agent cannot fully understand parameter behavior. It is adequate for a low-complexity read but has a clear gap.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate, but it does not. It mentions a 0–366 day range that map to the 'days' parameter, but never names or explains that parameter, and it does not mention 'as_of' at all, including its default null behavior. This leaves both optional parameters substantially undocumented.

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 and resource: 'Read estimated upcoming minimums' within 0–366 days. It clearly communicates that the tool estimates upcoming payment minimums and accounts for payments already recorded. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as list_debts or simulate_plan, so it falls short of 5.

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 usage by stating what it reads and the time window, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like list_debts or simulate_plan, nor does it state when this tool should not be used. This is minimally adequate but leaves routing decisions to inference.

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