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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-derivable behavior: 1-3 minute latency when unscoped, seconds when scoped, 5-minute result caching, and the caveat that PropertyIDs are honored even though the CSV has no Property column. That last point prevents a client-side filtering mistake.

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?

Front-loaded with the report contents, then scope, then the performance warning, then args — a sensible priority order with no filler. The trailing Args block partially restates the inline scoping prose, a minor redundancy, but nothing is wasted overall.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. Everything an agent needs to call this correctly — scope semantics, latency expectation, caching, all four parameter formats — is present.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and does. It defines portfolio format (name or 3-letter prefix), property_ids format (comma-separated) with the OR relationship, as_of_date format (MM/DD/YYYY) and default, and top_n default plus max (50), which the schema does not state.

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+resource and enumerates the actual output (AP by aging bucket, top GL accounts owed, 61+ day GL accounts), then names the sibling it mirrors ('Mirror image of analyze_aged_receivables'). An agent can distinguish it from the other ~60 analyze_* tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: scope with portfolio/property_ids for fast returns, and the exact prompt to send the user before an unscoped call. Also states the mutually exclusive relationship ('Use this OR portfolio') and the caching window, which changes how an agent should sequence calls.

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