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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond the annotations: the data provenance (unreconciled balances on the AR ledger account), that it returns report and exchangeRates, and the required invoice:read scope.

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 core purpose, then provenance, then sibling routing, then the auth requirement. Each sentence carries distinct information and none is redundant.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description names the returned artifacts (report and exchangeRates) and the data source, so an agent knows what to expect. Combined with full schema coverage and rich annotations, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description echoes dateTo ('as of dateTo') and the company scoping but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Get the aged receivables v2 report') and defines the output precisely: outstanding customer amounts as of dateTo, grouped by contact into aging buckets. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get-overdue-invoices and get-aged-receivables.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: get-overdue-invoices for past-due buckets only, get-invoice-pending-summary for totals, and get-aged-receivables for the original report. The when-to-use-this vs alternatives decision is fully resolved.

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