sezzle_detect_uncaptured_orders

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the core filtering logic, but it does not disclose the role of the required 'now' parameter, whether authorization expiry is considered, or what the function returns. This missing behavioral detail lowers the score despite annotation coverage.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and condition, earning full credit for conciseness.

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 simple read-only filter, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain the function's output (no output schema present) or the necessity of 'now', which is a required parameter. The behavior is narrow, but these gaps prevent a higher score.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. It references 'authorization' and 'captured amount', which correspond to fields in the 'orders' array items, giving a hint about that parameter. However, the 'now' parameter is completely unexplained, and there is no explicit mapping of parameter names to roles.

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 'Find approved orders whose captured amount remains below authorization' states a specific action (find) and a clear resource (approved orders) with a precise condition. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like detect_stuck_authorizations, which likely target different conditions (e.g., no capture at all).

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 implies usage when needing to identify approved orders with incomplete capture, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sezzle_detect_stuck_authorizations or sezzle_audit_auth_capture_flow. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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