list_open_pos

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

With no annotations, the description provides thorough behavioral detail. It precisely defines 'open' via billed vs. ordered quantity, and discloses exact response formats for sap_s4hana, netsuite, and dynamics365, including envelope shapes and count fields. This goes far beyond a typical description.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then defines the key term 'open', then gives system-specific details. Every sentence adds value; the response format details are essential for parsing across ERP backends. No wasted words.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool, the description is complete: it states what qualifies as 'open', clarifies no arguments, and provides output shapes even though an output schema exists. The extra examples increase usability without significant length.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete. The description explicitly notes 'Takes no args', which reinforces the schema. Per the baseline for 0 params, a 4 is appropriate; there's nothing more to add.

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 'List purchase orders with no fully-matching invoice yet' — a specific verb (list) plus resource (purchase orders) and scope (open three-way-match workqueue). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_purchase_order or list_pending_approvals by focusing on the open-match condition.

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 implies usage: this is the workqueue for open three-way matches. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the purpose is clear and distinct from sibling list tools. The 'Takes no args' note also clarifies invocation.

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