get_payables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behaviors. It states that 'as_of_date' is 'informational only' and points to docs, which is a positive disclosure of a limitation. However, it does not reveal what the tool returns (e.g., a list of ledgers with balances? only those with non-zero balances?), the format of output, or any side effects (though it's likely read-only). The behavior beyond that is opaque.

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 the first sentence giving the core function, followed by a compact parameter list. It avoids redundancy and front-loads the key purpose. Minor point: the 'Args' section repeats parameter names, but it's standard and adds useful details. No wasted sentences.

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 that there are only two optional parameters and the tool is relatively simple, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. However, there is an output schema that could clarify return values, but the description doesn't detail what the output contains (e.g., does it return a list of balances?). Also, without annotations, the description should explain if there are any prerequisites (e.g., company must be set) or effects, which are 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'company' defaults to the configured default and 'as_of_date' is informational only, which adds value beyond the schema's bare 'Company' and 'As Of Date' titles. However, it doesn't elaborate on the format of 'as_of_date' (though it says ISO format) or what 'informational only' implies for the result. The description provides some semantic context but not comprehensive.

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 resource ('outstanding payables') and the specific condition ('ledgers under 'Sundry Creditors' with a non-zero balance owed by the company'). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_receivables, which likely handles amounts owed to the company, and from other financial reports like get_trial_balance or get_balance_sheet, which are broader. The verb 'Get' is specific and the scope is well-defined.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that get_receivables is for amounts owed to the company, nor does it clarify when to use get_trial_balance versus get_payables. The context of 'outstanding payables' implies a use case for checking unpaid liabilities, but there is no explicit guidance on selection among siblings.

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