list-aged-payables-by-contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists data, implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose. There is no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured to include usage hints or parameter context, preventing a perfect score.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool with four parameters (one required), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, and usage context, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation and limitations.

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 75%, with three of four parameters having descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'for a certain contact' and 'up to a report date,' which aligns with 'contactId' and 'reportDate' but does not explain 'invoicesFromDate' or 'invoicesToDate.' Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Lists the aged payables in Xero' and specifies 'for a certain contact up to a report date.' It uses specific verbs ('Lists') and resources ('aged payables in Xero'), but does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list-aged-receivables-by-contact' or other list tools, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides minimal guidance: it mentions 'for a certain contact up to a report date,' which implies context but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-invoices' or 'list-aged-receivables-by-contact.' No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites are given, leaving usage unclear.

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