GET /hardware/audit/overdue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the business meaning of 'overdue for auditing' and says nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, or what determines overdue status — a modest but real contribution given the annotation coverage.

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 short sentences with the purpose stated first, which is well front-loaded. The second sentence ('Generated from Snipe-IT OpenAPI operation hardwareauditoverdue') is low-value boilerplate that largely repeats the path already in the title.

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?

With no output schema, five optional query parameters, and several near-duplicate sibling endpoints, the description should say more about what is returned and how this differs from the 'due' and raw variants. It leaves the agent to guess on both counts.

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?

All five parameters (sort, limit, order, offset, search) are documented at 100% in the schema, though each notes it was codegen-added and not in the spec. The description contributes no parameter semantics at all, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a list of assets that are overdue for auditing,' which an agent can understand without opening the schema. However, the massive sibling set contains near-identical operations (snipeit_list_audit_overdue, snipeit_gen_hardwareauditdue) and the description does nothing to distinguish this one from them, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus snipeit_gen_hardwareauditdue ('due') or the duplicate snipeit_list_audit_overdue, nor any mention of prerequisites such as audit-interval configuration. The agent must infer the due-vs-overdue distinction entirely from tool names.

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