get_active_installments

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing read-only behavior against the live school, server-side auth injection, throttling under a 30-per-10s cap, retry behavior on 429/5xx, pagination semantics, sort order, and detailed error-response handling. This gives the agent a strong model of side effects and operational constraints.

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 well-structured with labeled sections (Behavior, Parameters, Returns, Use when) and front-loads the read-only nature. There is mild redundancy in opening with 'Get active installments' and then 'Return a list with active installments of users,' but overall every other sentence carries useful information.

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, the description carries the full burden of explaining return behavior, and it does: HTTP status plus JSON body, non-2xx error surfaces, pagination boundary behavior, and filter composition. Given the 4 optional parameters and the API's operational context, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics: multiple query params are combined with the AND operator, and pagination is explicitly linked to the `page` parameter. This clarifies how the parameters interact, which the schema alone does not communicate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get active installments') and immediately states the exact endpoint. It clarifies scope (active installments of users), ordering (user creation date descending), pagination (50 per page), and filtering semantics, so an agent can distinguish this from other read/list tools like get_payments or get_users_subscriptions.

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 'Use when' section explicitly says it is safe to call speculatively for lookups and reporting, and explicitly warns against using it for changes, pointing to 'the matching 🟡 write tool.' It does not name a specific sibling alternative, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide when this tool applies.

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