get_dunning_run

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only safety profile, and the description adds 'Reads only.' along with a description of the returned content. It doesn't disclose potential large result sizes, pagination, or error behavior, but it does add useful content-level detail beyond the annotation.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the core action, then lists the specific returned fields. The final sentence 'Reads only.' is somewhat redundant with the opening verb and the readOnlyHint annotation, but the overall length is appropriate and each part contributes to understanding.

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 no output schema, the description gives a high-level summary of the returned items and letter groups but does not define the structure or types. It doesn't mention paging, size limits, or the meaning of German terms like Mahngebühr and Verzugszins, leaving an agent with only partial information about the response.

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 0%, and the description gives no meaning to the two parameters. While runId and workspaceId are self-descriptive by name, the description does not explicitly map them to the dunning run or workspace, nor does it mention required formats or how to obtain a runId.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Read' and the resource 'one Mahnlauf' (dunning run), then enumerates exactly what is included: items with invoice, debtor, level, open amount, Mahngebühr, Verzugszins note, days overdue, plus per-debtor letter groups with send outcomes. This clearly distinguishes it from list_dunning_runs and get_dunning_pdf, which exist in the sibling set.

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 phrase 'in full' implies this is the detailed counterpart to listing tools, but no sibling tool is explicitly named. It provides clear context on when to use it—when a complete single-run detail is needed—but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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