expiries_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context — result ordering, the status vocabulary including the remindDaysBefore threshold, and the vehicle sub-object shape — but says nothing about pagination, result limits or permission requirements.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then return shape, then filters. Every clause carries information — no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

No output schema exists, so describing the returned fields (daysLeft, status enum, vehicle, renewedFromId) is exactly the right compensation and it is done. Gaps remain on pagination/limits and on how `companyId` interacts with the environment default in the listing context.

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 only 20% schema coverage, the description carries most of the burden and does so: it explains `kind`, `vehicleId`, `companyLevel` and `includeClosed` (including the non-obvious closed/renewed semantics). Only `companyId` is left to the schema, and there it is documented.

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?

Names the resource (expiry items of the company), the scope (vehicle documents plus company-level items) and the sort order (soonest first, expired first). It never names a sibling such as expiries_upcoming or expiries_get, so the agent must infer which endpoint to use from the filter list alone.

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?

Filter semantics function as usage guidance: `companyLevel` is tied to items without a vehicle and `includeClosed` is explicitly labeled as being for history/renewed items. No explicit when-not or named alternative is given, but the conditions that select each filter are clear.

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