finance_outstanding

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds context about the monthly granularity and comparison aspects, which is helpful but not extensive. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded, but could be structured into multiple points for clarity. Every word is relevant.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the agent must infer the return structure from the description. The description mentions invoiced, paid, and outstanding amounts but does not specify format, aggregation details, or response structure, leaving gaps for a complex financial report.

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 descriptions for companyId, from, and to. The description adds only that the tool produces monthly data, but that is implied by the tool name. Minimal added value beyond 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 specifies a clear verb (shows comparison) and resource (receivables and payables) and distinguishes from sibling tools like finance_overview and finance_ap_ar by highlighting the monthly and invoiced vs paid vs outstanding angle.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., finance_ap_ar, finance_overview). The description does not state prerequisites, limitations, or suitable contexts.

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