Get accounting overview

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It only mentions returning a dashboard but does not disclose that the operation is likely read-only, nor does it explain aggregation behavior, date handling, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral context.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. However, it is overly concise, omitting critical details that could be added without significant bloat.

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 absence of output schema and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description fails to explain what the dashboard contains, how parameters filter data, or the return format. The tool is incomplete for an AI agent to use correctly without additional context.

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 provides no explanation of the four parameters (date, company, profile, include_overdue). The agent gets no guidance on format, meaning, or default behavior beyond the parameter names.

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 verb 'return' and the resource 'compact dashboard for unpaid receivables and payables'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_unpaid_documents or get_partner_balance_summary by offering a high-level overview.

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 implies usage for a quick overview of unpaid finances, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_overdue_items or get_partner_balance_summary. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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