get_outstanding

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it explicitly states the tool NEVER mutates a message, is report-first, and auto-resolves nothing. It details the overdue calculation, auth requirements (agent token, sender-scoped), and error codes including RATE_LIMITED. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 long but exceptionally well-structured, with clear sections for summary, usage, behavior, return value, and errors. Every sentence adds value, and it front-loads the core purpose immediately. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates by specifying the return object shape with all fields, explaining the lifecycle states, the overdue flag, and error codes. It is complete for an agent to know exactly what to expect and how to handle errors.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions already present. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it restates the include_resolved semantics and agent_name role but does not significantly go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'The SENDER's outstanding-ask recap + the pull source of truth for overdue drift.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_messages or get_messages_summary by focusing on sent asks/obligations, the outstanding set, and the 'PULL' nature versus webhooks. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 'When to use' section explicitly states use cases (orchestrator reconstructing what it is owed on a fresh session or any time needing current picture) and contrasts with webhooks that may be missed. It also explains that LOG messages are excluded and that include_resolved changes the view, providing clear situational guidance.

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