expiries_upcoming

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the default and max days, includes already expired items, and details the exact output structure (flat rows with specified fields and a counts object). It also notes that the dashboard uses the same list, implying consistency. This is comprehensive and transparent about the operation's behavior.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core query (what expires in the next N days) and packs in the default, max, inclusion of expired items, and the full output shape with counts. There is no filler or repetition, and every clause adds value.

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 that there is no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of the return value: flat rows with specific fields and a counts object. It also covers the input parameter behavior (days) and the dashboard use case. For a read-only listing operation with no side effects, this is fully adequate.

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 provides descriptions for companyId but not for days. The description compensates for days by stating the default (60) and max (730), adding meaning beyond the schema's min/max constraints. For companyId, the schema already explains its purpose, so the description doesn't need to repeat it. Overall, it adds value to the main parameter and leaves the well-documented one alone.

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's purpose: to list what expires within a given number of days, with a default and max. It specifies the resource (expiries) and the action (list upcoming), and the scope is explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like expiries_list (which likely lists all expiries) by focusing on the upcoming window and including expired items.

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 mentions that the dashboard card uses the same list, which provides context for when this tool might be used. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like expiries_list, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The dashboard reference is a useful hint but not a full usage guideline.

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