overdue_reportIdentify unpaid invoices past due, sorted worst-first by days overdue with amount, plus a total per currency.
List every invoice not paid in full whose due date has passed, worst first, with days overdue and the amount, then a total per currency. Free. Use invoice_list for everything still open.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | No | YYYY-MM-DD, defaults to today |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states the tool is a free listing operation and discloses output structure (worst-first ordering, days overdue, amount, total per currency). It could be more explicit about having no side effects, but 'List' strongly implies a read-only report.
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 two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core behavior, and the second adds cost and sibling guidance. No redundant phrases or filler.
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 the single optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It covers the scope, ordering, displayed fields, total structure, cost, and the relevant sibling alternative.
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 100%, and the only parameter 'as_of' already has a clear description and default. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every invoice not paid in full whose due date has passed'), with clear output details. It also distinguishes itself from invoice_list by directing open invoices to that sibling.
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 explicitly names the alternative tool ('Use invoice_list for everything still open') and implies when this tool is appropriate: overdue, unpaid invoices. This gives the agent a clear routing rule without needing to inspect schemas.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.