delinquent_customers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that only active customers are included, that invoices must be overdue by at least min_days, and that results are ordered by value descending, but it does not state read-only behavior, pagination, or how limit interacts with the result set.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The population, threshold, and ordering are packed efficiently into one line.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required in the description. The purpose is understandable, but with no annotations and no schema descriptions, key invocation details such as the reference date behind as_of and the limit behavior remain undocumented.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains min_days as the minimum overdue age, but leaves as_of and limit entirely uninterpreted, adding meaning for only one of three parameters.

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 states a specific population (active clients with overdue invoices), a threshold criterion using min_days, and a sort order (highest value first). It does not name a verb explicitly or distinguish this report from siblings such as delinquency_aging or delinquency_by_month.

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 defines the filtered customer set but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. With many sibling delinquency and retention tools, an agent gets no help choosing this over delinquency_aging or churn_risk.

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