get_aged_receivables_detail_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the return type ('aged receivables detail') but does not indicate whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, data sensitivity, or output format (e.g., if pagination is supported). For a report tool, basic safety information is missing.

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 consists of two concise sentences: one stating the purpose and one critical usage warning. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and front-loads important information.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. The schema descriptions are thorough, so the description does not need to repeat them, but it omits any explanation of the output structure or behavior like pagination. It is adequate but lacks some context for a complete understanding.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful emphasis by reiterating that all ID parameters must be numeric strings and to use directory reports for lookup, which clarifies correct parameter usage beyond the schema. This added value justifies a score of 4.

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 'Returns aged receivables detail for the given filters,' which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not distinguish this report from many sibling report tools (e.g., get_account_totals_report, get_receivables_activity_report), lacking differentiation.

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 includes an important note about ID parameters requiring numeric strings and directs users to lookup IDs via directory reports first, which aids correct usage. However, it does not provide when-to-use guidance versus alternative report tools (e.g., for filtering by property vs. tenant), nor does it specify prerequisites.

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