company_payables

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

The description hints at inspection (read) and supply (write) but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether data is modified. With no annotations, the tool's behavior is entirely opaque, making it impossible to infer safety or impact.

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 brief (one sentence) but not effective; it uses vague terms without elaboration. It is concise in length but fails to communicate essential meaning, so the sentence does not 'earn its place' as informative.

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 complex seven-parameter schema and no descriptions, the single vague sentence is grossly insufficient. There is no explanation of the resource, operation semantics, expected outputs, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. The agent lacks critical context to use the tool correctly.

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 has zero descriptions for the seven parameters. Parameter names like 'now', 'engine', 'operation', and 'bundle_json' are unexplained. The required fields 'project_id' and 'bundle_json' lack any semantic detail, leaving an agent without the information needed to construct a valid request.

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 'Inspect, plan or supply sealed payables receipts' but does not indicate a single, specific action. It offers three vague verbs without clarifying the operation, resource, or context. This is ambiguous and could be misleading, failing to distinguish the tool from many payables-related siblings.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like quickbooks_create_bill or xero_list_bills. The description lacks any conditions, prerequisites, or examples to direct an agent toward appropriate usage.

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