finance_xero_ar_followup

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

Discloses the key side effect: send=true sends messages directly while send=false returns drafts for review. The destructiveHint annotation covers the irreversible communication risk, though the description itself does not spell out potential downstream consequences.

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?

Two functional sentences plus a compact argument list provide high signal with no redundancy or irrelevant detail. The structure makes the tool easy to scan and understand.

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?

Provides enough context to invoke correctly and explains the draft-vs-send safety behavior. Slight ambiguity remains around whether message is the literal customer-facing text or an abstract objective, and the output format is not described, though an output schema exists.

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?

All four parameters are semantically explained beyond their titles: aging_bucket has allowed values and empty meaning, min_amount_usd defines the threshold, message is described as a free-text objective, and send is explained as a direct-send/draft toggle.

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?

Clearly states it triages Xero accounts receivable and drafts customer-facing follow-up messages for overdue invoices, which distinguishes it from generic Xero list/report tools among siblings. The verb and resource are specific and the purpose is immediately understandable.

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?

Gives concrete filters and the draft-vs-send behavior, so an agent knows when and how to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools like xero_list_invoices or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear.

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