m3_liabilities

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Query' signals that this is a read-only operation, and the listed attributes give some indication of what will be returned. However, it does not describe behavior such as default pagination, filter semantics, response shape, or the meaning of the vague 'controlling vars' term, leaving meaningful gaps.

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, compact sentence that leads with the action and resource. It avoids unnecessary wording and conveys the core purpose efficiently. The only minor flaw is the cryptic phrase 'controlling vars,' which is concise but not clearly explained.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to carry substantial context. It provides only the high-level purpose and some output-ish fields, but leaves critical invocation details undetermined: how to build a 'where' clause, what ordering options exist, how pagination behaves, and what the response looks like. This is a clear gap for a query tool.

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 description coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate for the sparse parameter documentation. It mentions domain fields like VAT, payment status, and maturity dates, which may indirectly inform what can go into the 'where' clause, but it does not explain skip, take, order, or where syntax. This is not enough to help an agent construct a correct query.

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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and a clear resource ('liabilities'), with a parenthetical clarification that liabilities are payables/obligations. It also lists relevant queryable dimensions (VAT, payment status, maturity dates), making the tool's focus understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as m3_received_invoices or m3_create_liability, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 verb 'Query' implies this is the tool for reading liabilities rather than creating or deleting them, providing some usage context. But the description does not state when to prefer this over m3_received_invoices, m3_receivables, or the create/delete liability siblings, nor does it give any exclusion criteria or alternative routing.

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