billingo_get_document_remindersRetrieve payment reminder events for a document, grouped into sent, upcoming, and postal-mail reminders to track follow-up status.
Returns the payment reminder events sent for a document, grouped into sent, upcoming and postal-mail reminders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that results are grouped into sent, upcoming, and postal-mail reminders, but does not elaborate on what those categories entail or any other behavioral nuances.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that uses concise, precise wording. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's action and output grouping.
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 single-parameter input, annotations covering read-only and idempotent behavior, and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the return grouping. It does not detail the contents of each reminder category, but this is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.
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?
The schema covers the single parameter with a clear 'Document id' description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond reinforcing that the id refers to a document.
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 returns payment reminder events for a document and specifies the grouping into sent, upcoming, and postal-mail reminders. It is specific about the resource and action, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_document_payments.
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?
Usage is implied: the agent should use this tool when it needs payment reminder events for a document. However, no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.