aged_payable

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that only open balances are included and that results are bucketed by days overdue as of a date. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what the exact output structure is, or any limitations such as pagination.

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 a single concise sentence that fronts the key concept 'Aged payable' and includes the essential details: open balances, bucketing by overdue days, and as-of date. No unnecessary words.

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?

Despite a simple two-parameter schema, the lack of annotations and output schema means the description must explain the return format and parameter semantics more thoroughly. It only vaguely describes the output as bucketed balances and omits partner filtering behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to know exactly what to expect.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains as_of_date via 'as of a date' but the partner_id parameter is not mentioned or described. The meaning of partner_id as a vendor filter is not provided, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name.

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 clearly states the tool reports open vendor bill balances grouped by overdue day buckets. It distinguishes itself from sibling aged_receivable by specifying vendor bills, and from generic invoice search tools by the aging/bucket focus.

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 description implies this tool is used for vendor payable aging reports, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like aged_receivable or search_invoices. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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