get_payment_terms_latam

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds behavioral constraints (only supports BR, MX, CL, AR, CO) and a disclaimer about not being legal advice, enhancing transparency beyond 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?

The description is concise (4 sentences) and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second lists return fields, third notes supported countries, fourth gives usage context, and fifth includes a disclaimer. No unnecessary words.

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 output schema exists, the description complements it by explaining the tool's purpose, supported inputs, and use cases. It provides a complete picture for an agent to understand when and how to use the 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 coverage is 100%, with a clear description and examples for the single parameter. The description adds a list of supported countries, but this is largely redundant with the schema examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal extra meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('B2B payment terms for a given Latin American country'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like tax or holiday calculators. It explicitly lists supported countries and the return structure.

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 provides explicit use cases (generating invoices, setting payment due dates, automating AR workflows) but does not mention when not to use it or directly compare with siblings. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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