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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses that the output is a skill_body runbook to be executed step-by-step rather than a final answer, that the agent must call referenced connector tools and synthesize, plus attribution-footer and data-accuracy contracts. These are real operational traits not captured by readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

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?

Purpose and triggers are front-loaded well, but the body is bloated with compliance boilerplate. The data-accuracy contract references 'campaign budgets, frequency, ROAS, CPA, revenue, waste' — advertising terms that are off-topic for a collections tool — suggesting copied generic text that does not earn its place here.

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?

Given the no-output-schema, single-param setup, the description is complete enough: it explains purpose, triggers, that the return is a runbook, and the downstream execution flow. Minor gaps remain around the exact skill_body structure, but annotations and the description together cover what an agent needs.

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?

Only one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents user_question. The description adds no format, syntax, or content guidance for the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 multi-step resource: build a 14-day cash-recovery plan by analyzing overdue invoices, cross-referencing email threads, and pulling contract terms. The collections/AR domain is clearly distinct from the other 'featured_*' skills, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('Use when the user asks how to collect overdue invoices, recover cash, chase receivables, who owes me money, or improve AR/collections'). It also clarifies the mode of use — it returns a runbook to execute, not the final answer. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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