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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no default as-of date, no aging-bucket structure, no pagination behavior. The endpoint string is implementation trivia rather than agent-facing behavior.

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 compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no padding. The API endpoint line is low value for an agent but costs almost nothing in length.

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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at the return shape (aging buckets, totals, per-customer rows), which it omits. For a simple three-optional-parameter read-only report it is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about output structure.

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 date, page, and per_page are already fully documented with format and bounds. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the schema baseline but earns no credit above it.

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 resource and scope: unpaid customer invoices grouped by age, which implicitly distinguishes it from the payable counterpart in the sibling list. It is clear but never explicitly names kledo_report_aged_payable as the contrasting tool.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over kledo_report_aged_payable, kledo_list_invoices, or the other financial reports. The only extra line is a raw API endpoint, which does not help an agent decide when to invoke it.

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