list_debtors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination behavior and the importance of modified_since for incremental sync. However, it does not mention idempotency, error handling, or authentication requirements. The behavioral information is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise, with a clear heading and organized Args section. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the main action and followed by parameter details.

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 the existence of an output schema (not visible here), the description covers the input parameters thoroughly and includes behavioral hints (pagination, incremental sync). It lacks details on error conditions or ordering, but for a list endpoint with good parameter descriptions, this is largely complete.

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%, requiring the description to fully define parameters. Each parameter is explained with examples (search_at field names), constraints (search_for required with search_at), format (ISO date for modified_since), and behavior (limit_pages default all). This adds significant value beyond the schema properties.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('debtors'), with additional context 'customers'. The distinction from sibling 'get_debtor' is implied through plural vs singular and the presence of filtering parameters. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains each parameter's role and provides explicit guidance (e.g., 'Critical for incremental sync' for modified_since, pagination behavior for limit_pages). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast with alternatives, leaving some implicit assumptions.

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