who_owes_me_money

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds the specific behavioral context that the tool filters for open invoices and ranks them by amount due, which is not evident from annotations or schema. It does not mention output format details, but the output schema covers that.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the first sentence providing example queries and the second stating the core operation. No redundant information, and the most important behavioral detail is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only query tool with an output schema, the description provides the essential function and usage examples. It could improve by explicitly mentioning how top_n affects results, but the overall picture is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter top_n, and the description does not mention or explain it. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory and has a default, but the description fails to add any meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb 'ranks' and a resource 'open GorillaDesk invoices', and even provides example natural-language queries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_invoices, which likely list invoices without ranking by amount due.

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 embeds usage triggers by giving example questions ('Who owes me money?', 'What's my AR?', 'Who has open invoices?'), telling the agent when to select this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it.

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