get_payables_aging

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes the output conceptually but does not disclose side effects, data freshness, or exceptions. The reference to 'same shape of answer' adds some context but remains vague about the exact response format.

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 compact—three sentences cover purpose, usage, and output shape, followed by a terse Args block. There is no padding or repetition.

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 a simple 3-parameter tool and an available output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and the relationship to a sibling. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Despite the schema having no per-parameter descriptions, the tool description's Args section explains as_of, min_days_overdue, and vendor with format and default behavior. This gives the agent the exact meaning and usage for each parameter, fully compensating for the schema gaps.

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 opening sentence 'Who the business owes money to, and how overdue each bill is' clearly states the purpose with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes the tool from its sibling get_receivables_aging by labeling it as the accounts-payable mirror.

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 explicitly tells when to use it: 'use it for unpaid bills, money owed to suppliers or vendors, and upcoming payment obligations.' It also signals the alternative by mentioning get_receivables_aging as the mirror, providing clear exclusion boundaries.

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