azeth_get_due_agreements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the scanning nature ('scans all agreements'), performance implications ('consider filtering... for large-scale'), return structure ('Array of due agreements with...'), and workflow integration ('can be passed directly to azeth_execute_agreement'). Lacks explicit confirmation of read-only safety.

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?

optimally structured with clear functional sections: purpose (sentence 1), usage context (sentence 2-3), return value (sentence 4), workflow integration (sentence 5), and performance note (sentence 6). No redundant text; every sentence advances agent understanding.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing the return structure (array with payer account, agreement ID, expected payout). It also explains the keeper/execution workflow context essential for blockchain payment agreement tools. Complete for a 2-parameter query tool with no annotations.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both 'chain' and 'accounts' parameters. The description references 'one or more accounts' which aligns with the accounts parameter, but does not add semantic detail beyond what the comprehensive schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('payment agreements that are due for execution'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tool 'azeth_list_agreements' by emphasizing the 'due' status filter. It also explicitly names 'azeth_execute_agreement' as the downstream consumer, establishing clear separation of concerns between querying and execution.

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?

Contains an explicit 'Use this when:' section identifying two distinct personas (keeper bots and service providers) with concrete scenarios. It also provides implicit 'when-not' guidance via the Note recommending filtering for large-scale operations, helping agents optimize usage patterns.

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