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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the report is real-time and excludes temporal payment mismatches, and it lists the returned fields. The word 'report' implies a read-only operation, but safety, authentication, and rate-limit details are not mentioned. Still, it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare tool name.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and filtering logic; the second lists output fields and the intended use case. Every sentence earns its place and information is front-loaded.

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 simple report tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it explains what the report does, what data it returns, and when to use it. It lacks details on pagination, sorting, or error behavior, but those are not essential for basic invocation. The main missing element is explicit parameter guidance, but that is more about the parameters themselves.

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 does not mention the parameters apiKey or orgSlug at all. It adds no meaning beyond what the schema's property names already suggest, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions. This is a significant gap for an agent needing to invoke the tool correctly.

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 this is a 'Real-time report of clients with genuine outstanding debt' and distinguishes itself by excluding 'temporal payment mismatches.' It also lists the exact fields shown, making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous. This differentiates it from sibling finance/report tools like finance_aging or report_no_shows.

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 explicitly says 'Use to answer "who actually owes money" questions,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also clarifies scope by excluding prepaid clients whose balance is covered, but it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use instructions, leaving some gap.

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