finance_xero_ar_followup

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

The description claims 'draft' messages, but the 'send' parameter allows direct sending, which is a significant behavioral detail not disclosed upfront. No annotations exist to cover this. Behavioral tuning to payment history is noted but overshadows the send/draft contradiction.

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 overview followed by a structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value, though the opening sentence could be slightly more specific.

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?

Having an output schema partially reduces the burden, but the description omits important context like what happens when sending messages (actual email dispatch), prerequisites like customer data availability, and side effects. The send/draft ambiguity undermines completeness.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds necessary meaning to parameters: explains aging_bucket ranges, min_amount_usd as a filter, and send as a toggle. However, 'message' is only vaguely described as 'free-text objective for the action.'

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 uses specific verbs 'triage' and 'draft' to clearly indicate a workflow for Xero accounts receivable follow-up. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being Xero-specific and focused on customer-facing messages.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like finance_dunning_outreach or finance_collections_priority. The description does not mention prerequisites or situations where this tool is preferred.

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