Settings: get debitors

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

The description repeats the read-only nature already indicated by annotations (readOnlyHint=true) but adds no new behavioral traits. The endpoint method (POST) is a minor detail not found in annotations, but overall value is limited given annotation richness.

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 extremely concise, using only two lines plus an endpoint line. It front-loads the read-only nature and immediately states the action. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no extraneous content.

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?

The description is minimal and lacks context about returns (e.g., a list of debtors) or pagination behavior. For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, it is adequate but leaves gaps in understanding the full scope.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or explanation to parameters like limit, offset, or api_key, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('debitors'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like settings_get_creditors, which limits contextual clarity slightly.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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