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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: exact return shape, hidden_zero_rows counting, filters listing only confirmed applied parameters, and the no_data flag. It also discloses that ignored parameters are absent from filters, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the description is dense with useful return-format details. It's slightly run-on and the 'detail reports' aside could confuse, which prevents a 5.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the return contract: columns, column_types, rows, row types, depth, money representation, id semantics, hidden rows, filters, and no_data. The only small gap is explaining aging_method values, which is minor given the schema's description coverage.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that a parameter QuickBooks ignored will be absent from filters, clarifying the effective behavior of customer/department/aging_method parameters.

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 action ('Generate') and resource ('QuickBooks aged receivables report'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_aged_receivable_detail or get_aged_payables, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many report siblings. It mentions detail reports but doesn't instruct the agent to use get_aged_receivable_detail for detail, and it provides no exclusions or prerequisite conditions.

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