get_outstanding_documents

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only, and the description adds substantial runtime behavior beyond that: the 'Showing X-Y of Z' summary line, compact one-line-per-doc format, action columns, most-overdue-first sorting, pagination with offset, and limit=0 count-only semantics. No contradiction with 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 long but every part earns its place: overview, use-case, output format, sorting, pagination, verbose mode, and a per-parameter Args section are cleanly organized and front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no filler.

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?

For a six-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the description supplies nearly all needed call context: result shape, sorting, paging, count behavior, and output-mode switch, and an output schema exists for structured returns. The omission of the employee party_type option is the only material completeness gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full parameter burden and documents limit, offset, verbose, party_type, customer_id, and vendor_id with concrete meanings and edge cases such as limit=0 and default/max limits. The only gap is that party_type schema also allows 'employee', but the Args text only mentions filtering by customer/vendor despite employee vouchers being in the overview.

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 names a specific verb and resource set: posted customer invoices, vendor bills, employee vouchers, and credit notes with outstanding balances. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from list_documents and get_document as the authoritative unpaid list, so an agent can tell what it does without ambiguity.

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?

It says this one call answers 'what is actually unpaid?' and that there is no need to combine list_documents and get_document. It also points to list_documents for the full status vocabulary and to verbose=true for pay_document workflows, giving clear routing guidance to alternatives.

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