siigo_get_accounts_payable

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get accounts payable report' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the schema parameters), or what the report contains (e.g., format, data fields). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this lacks critical context about how it behaves.

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, efficient phrase with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.

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?

Given the complexity of a financial reporting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the report returns (e.g., list of payable items, summary totals), potential side effects, or error conditions. For a tool that likely involves sensitive data and pagination, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'page' and 'page_size'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying pagination through the term 'report', which is already covered by the schema. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 'Get accounts payable report' states the basic action (get) and resource (accounts payable report), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what constitutes the report (e.g., list of payable items, summary data) or differentiate it from similar tools like siigo_get_purchases or siigo_get_trial_balance, which might involve financial data. This provides a minimal viable purpose without sibling distinction.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like siigo_get_purchases (which might relate to payable transactions) and siigo_get_trial_balance (which could include payable balances), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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