List audits overdue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds no behavioral context whatsoever — nothing about pagination defaults, result size caps, or what the response contains. A bare endpoint string contributes zero information beyond the 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?

It is technically one line with no filler, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — the single token string 'GET /hardware/audit/overdue' carries no explanatory content and is not a useful front-loaded summary.

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?

A three-parameter tool with no output schema and 33% parameter documentation needs the description to explain scope, pagination, and return shape; the description supplies none of that. An agent cannot determine correct usage from this definition.

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 33%: only 'all' is documented (richly, including the truncated/next_offset behavior), while 'limit' and 'offset' have no descriptions in either schema or description. With low coverage the description must compensate, and it says nothing about any parameter.

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 is nothing but the raw endpoint 'GET /hardware/audit/overdue', which restates the tool name/title rather than explaining the operation. It does not say what an overdue audit is, what a returned row represents, or how this differs from the closely named siblings snipeit_list_audit_due and snipeit_audit_hardware.

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 at all about when to call this versus snipeit_list_audit_due (due audits) or snipeit_audit_hardware (performing an audit). The agent must infer the distinction from tool names alone.

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