What falls due soon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses active-only filtering, the 30-day default, the free-tier limit of 3 results, and the output fields. However, it omits ordering, whether the horizon is inclusive/exclusive, and any read-only or mutation implications, leaving some behavior undocumented.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core function, then adds output details and a free-tier caveat. Every clause contributes information, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

With one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does well to specify the returned table (amount, invoice due date, total per currency), default horizon, active filter, and free-tier limitation. It could still clarify sort order and the exact meaning of 'due in the next N days,' but it is largely sufficient for a simple list tool.

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 description covers the only parameter (days) completely, including default and free-tier effects, so the baseline is 3. The tool description mostly repeats the default and free-tier behavior rather than adding new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 clear action: table every occurrence of every ACTIVE schedule due in the next N days, with amount, invoice due date, and total per currency. This precise verb-plus-resource phrasing differentiates it from generic siblings like schedule_list and schedule_get by emphasizing active schedules and the upcoming-due window.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over siblings such as schedule_list, schedule_history, or forecast. There is no mention of exclusions, alternatives, or use-case prerequisites, so the agent must infer when this tool is appropriate.

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