expiries_upcoming

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: the 60-day default, the 730-day cap, and the fact that already-expired items are included rather than filtered out — a behavior an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the time window and scope, followed by the exact return shape. No filler; every clause conveys either a constraint or a returned field.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly: all 13 row fields plus the counts aggregate. The remaining gap is relational — it doesn't say how it differs from expiries_list or expiries_get.

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 50%, with `days` undocumented in the schema; the description fills exactly that gap by giving its default (60) and ceiling (730) and stating it is a forward-looking window. `companyId` is covered by the schema. No detail on whether days counts from today or how expired items beyond the window behave.

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?

States a specific query ('what expires in the next `days` days') with scope qualifiers (default 60, max 730, expired items included). It never distinguishes itself from the sibling expiries_list, so an agent can't be certain which list tool to pick.

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 'already expired items included' note and the field/counts preview imply when this list is appropriate, and the dashboard-card remark hints at the use case. But there is no explicit 'use this instead of expiries_list when...' routing, which matters given a very close sibling exists.

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