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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds beyond that: the view is scoped to the signed-in workspace, and the qualifier 'where available' warns that some metrics (concentration, 30-day movement) may be absent, which prepares the agent for partial results.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first front-loads what is returned, the second front-loads the exclusions. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the negative scope is placed where an agent scanning for routing cues will hit it.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return shapes, and it doesn't waste effort there. For a single-parameter read tool the definition is essentially complete; the only mild gap is that availability of certain metrics is hedged with 'where available' without saying how the agent should react when they are absent.

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 coverage is 100% and the single workspace_id parameter already carries a strong description telling the agent to use the exact id from list_shvl_workspaces and never infer a workspace. The tool description only echoes the signed-in-workspace scoping, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Return a read-only receivables health view') and then enumerates the exact contents: AR balance, overdue ageing, invoices raised this month, payments recorded, concentration and 30-day overdue movement. It closes with explicit negative scope ('not a bank balance, cash-flow, profit or whole-business health report'), which sharply separates it from the credit-control and aged-debtors siblings.

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 negative framing tells the agent when NOT to reach for this tool (cash-flow, profit, whole-business health questions), which is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming the specific alternative siblings (get_credit_control_brief, analyse_aged_debtors_csv) that would serve those adjacent questions, so the agent must still infer the redirect.

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