overdue_invoices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns oldest first, includes the total owed for the page at the top, and instructs to use total_count/next_cursor for pagination. These details go beyond the annotations and help the agent understand the output structure and pagination workflow.

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, efficient sentence. It front-loads the core purpose (return overdue invoices oldest first) and then adds the pagination and summary details, with no wasted words. Every phrase contributes essential information.

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?

For a paginated list tool without an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns (unpaid overdue invoices), ordering (oldest first), the summary total, and how to paginate via total_count/next_cursor. It does not specify invoice fields, but given the absence of an output schema, this is an acceptable level of completeness for an agent to successfully call the tool.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (cursor, page_size, returned_so_far), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning—mostly referencing pagination variables (total_count/next_cursor) but not directly enriching parameter understanding. It gives slight context on how the parameters interact with pagination, but not enough to raise the score above baseline.

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 explicitly states the action 'Return' and the specific resource 'unpaid Jobber invoices past their due date', with clear ordering ('oldest first') and a summarized total. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like quotes_outstanding (quotes) and jobs_summary (jobs), so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 when overdue invoices are needed, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no comparison to sibling tools or exclusions. The clear purpose helps, but explicit guidance is missing.

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