get_receivables_aging

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

The description discloses the query behavior in detail, including what it returns (every open invoice with specific fields, per-customer totals, aging buckets) and the effect of parameters. Since no annotations are provided, this information is essential; it doesn't mention side effects or auth, but for a reporting tool this is sufficient.

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 and well-structured, leading with purpose and usage, then listing parameters with clear explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the arg format is easy to scan.

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?

The description covers all parameter semantics, returns detailed information about the output, and provides usage context. With an output schema also present, the tool is fully specified for an agent.

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?

Although the input schema only provides types and defaults, the description fully explains each parameter's semantics: as_of with date format and default, min_days_overdue with inclusion logic, and customer as a case-insensitive substring. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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's purpose ('Who owes the business money, and how overdue each amount is') and explicitly maps it to use cases like unpaid invoices and overdue accounts. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on receivables ('unpaid customer invoices') rather than payables or other financial reports.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this for any question about unpaid customer invoices, accounts receivable, overdue accounts, collections, or who is behind on payment.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention alternatives but the scope is so well-defined that exclusion is implicit.

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