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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world), and the description adds real behavioral detail: only sent invoices are counted, the bucket boundaries, the per-currency/per-client grouping, descending sort by debt, and cent units. It stops short of stating default scope (all boards/clients) or any pagination/limit behavior.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed immediately by the bucket definitions, grouping, ordering, and units. No 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return shape (buckets, per-currency, per-client, sorted, cents) and the schema covers filters. Minor gaps remain: default scope when no filter is passed and whether results are row-per-client or aggregated totals.

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%, so boardId and clientId are already documented as filters, giving the baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about the parameters themselves (e.g., scope defaults when neither is supplied), so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 verb and resource (aging of what clients owe on sent invoices) and enumerates the exact buckets (not yet due, 1-30, 31-60, 61+), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_billing_report or list_invoices. An agent can identify the output shape without opening anything else.

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 the report's purpose and audience (outstanding receivables), so usage is inferable, but it never states when to pick this over get_billing_report, list_invoices, or list_unbilled_work, and names no exclusions or prerequisites.

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