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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, open-world call, so the description's added burden is modest. It earns credit for spelling out the shape of the returned data (overdue, upcoming, total, per-document amounts) since there is no output schema, but says nothing about pagination, limits, or behavior when a client has no debt.

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?

Two short sentences with the payload described first and the identifier requirement second; the endpoint path at the end is mildly redundant but cheap. No filler.

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 three-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers what matters: the data returned, the overdue/upcoming split, and how to identify the client. The remaining gap is the ambiguous case where no identifier is given, which the schema leaves open.

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 67%, and the description compensates by clarifying that client_id and client_code are alternatives for the same lookup, which the schema alone does not state since nothing is marked required. It does not, however, explain the default for as_of or what happens when neither identifier is supplied.

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 states a concrete resource and scope: a client's receivables, split into overdue vs upcoming debt, total owed, and the individual unpaid documents with amounts. That is specific enough to distinguish it from bsale_get_client or bsale_list_documents, although it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Give client_id or client_code' is a calling constraint, not usage guidance. Nothing says when this report is preferable to bsale_list_documents or bsale_get_client, and there are no exclusions or preconditions beyond the identifier requirement.

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