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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the report structure: aged into current, three periods, and older, per supplier.

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 short and front-loaded with the core meaning. The trailing 'SOAP GetAgedCreditors' is implementation trivia that adds little for an agent, but overall it remains efficient.

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 read-only report with fully documented optional parameters and safety annotations, the description provides enough context about the report content and aging structure. It could mention pagination behavior, but the schema covers that.

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 schema already documents date, limit, and offset. The description reinforces the date semantics and default today, but adds no further parameter guidance beyond the schema.

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 specific reporting purpose: who is owed money, aged into buckets, per supplier. It implicitly distinguishes itself from aged debtors by saying 'who you owe money to,' though it does not name the sibling tool 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?

The usage context is implied by 'who you owe money to at a date' and the aging buckets, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus supplier balance or aged debtors reports.

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