aged_receivable

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explains that balances are open customer invoices, bucketed by overdue days as of a date, which conveys read-only reporting behavior and reporting scope. However, it does not clarify whether 'open' means unpaid/unreconciled or how partner filtering interacts with the aging buckets.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the tool name and immediately states what the tool returns. No filler or redundant content.

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 aging report with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main output (open customer invoice balances in aging buckets) and the effective date. It omits partner_id semantics and any return format details, but overall it is reasonably complete for a report tool.

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 mentions 'as of a date' for the as_of_date parameter, but gives no explanation of partner_id, which is optional and could be used to filter the report. Thus, partner_id semantics are entirely undocumented.

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 identifies the tool as an aged receivable report: it lists open customer invoice balances bucketed by days overdue as of a date. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like aged_payable (vendor side) and search_invoices, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists.'

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 is the tool for obtaining customer receivable aging reports, but it does not state when to prefer it over alternatives such as aged_payable or search_invoices. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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