Arrears Report

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses that it reports position without sending anything, includes legal context for South African arrears/eviction notices, and explains how leases with no payment history are handled (never_paid rather than dropped).

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 well-structured: one-sentence purpose, read-only note, legal context, then arguments, returns, examples, and error handling in a clear format. Each section adds necessary information for correct invocation.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides a detailed Returns structure and error handling for edge cases (never_paid). It also gives two concrete examples and notes that the tool is read-only, making the behavior clear for an AI agent.

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 input schema provides descriptions for limit and response_format, but not for min_days_overdue or include_pii. The description's Args section covers all four with meaningful semantics, including defaults and allowed values, compensating for the schema's gaps.

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 and resource: 'Identify active leases with no recent payment, ranked by days since last payment, alongside how many notices have already been sent on each.' This clearly distinguishes it from generic query/scheduling/integration tools among its siblings.

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?

It states 'Read-only' and explicitly says it does not send anything, contrasting with serving a notice which is a 'separate, deliberate act' with statutory requirements. It gives example queries for common use cases. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for sending notices or other actions, so it narrowly misses a 5.

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