Overdue invoices (receivables aging)

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

With no annotations, the description correctly marks the tool as read-only and explains the data returned. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or performance but covers the key safety trait.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every part adds value: what the tool does, how bucketing works, special cases, and safety note.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description adequately describes the return categories (bucketed amounts, drafts, missing send marks). Lacks exact structure but sufficient for a straightforward aging 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%; the description adds context about overdue calculation (invoice date + payment terms) but does not elaborate on the parameters themselves beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool provides a receivables aging report: open and partially paid invoices bucketed by days overdue, including drafts and missing send marks. This sharply distinguishes it from siblings like sevdesk_list_invoices.

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 implies use for overdue invoice analysis but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. It provides clear context for when to choose this tool over basic listing tools.

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