Overdue orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing result ordering ('sorted by days late'), a hard row cap ('max 50 rows'), and an aggregate ('total value of the late orders'). It does not say what happens when more than 50 orders are late (silent truncation vs. error), which is the one behavioral detail an agent would still want.

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?

Front-loaded with the definition, then usage intents, then output behavior. Three short blocks, each earning its place, with no restatement of the title or name.

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?

Output schema exists and annotations cover safety, so the description only needs purpose, routing, and output-shape hints — all present. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% with clear per-parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The example 'Show orders more than 14 days late' and the customer-specific example do implicitly illustrate how customer and min_days_late behave, but no additional format, default, or edge-case semantics are added beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus a precise business definition: 'sales orders that are late: promised date passed but not yet delivered.' That definition cleanly separates it from siblings like get_order_status (single order lookup) and get_kpi (aggregates), which an agent can disambiguate without opening a schema.

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 'Use for ...' clause is followed by three concrete user phrasings, including a customer-scoped one, which maps intent to tool effectively. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or which sibling to pick for near-miss intents (e.g. a single order's status), leaving that inference to the agent.

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