list_unpaid_invoices

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states 'list of unpaid invoices'. It omits whether the output is a list, supports pagination, sorting, or any side effects. No behavioral traits are described.

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 a single short sentence, but it is under-specified and adds no value beyond the name. It does not earn its place as it fails to inform the agent.

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 tool with no output schema and a simple parameter, the description should at least indicate the return structure (e.g., a list of invoices). Lacking that, it is incomplete and insufficient for correct agent invocation.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter 'overdue_only' with a description, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own documentation.

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?

Description '未払い請求書の一覧' (List of unpaid invoices) merely restates the tool name in Japanese, providing no additional clarity beyond the English name. It does not differentiate from sibling tool 'list_invoices' except through the name itself, making it a tautology.

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 like 'list_invoices' or 'get_invoice'. The description lacks any indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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