delinquency_aging

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

With no annotations at all, the description must carry the entire behavioral burden. It does contribute real meaning by defining the metric as overdue AND unpaid and enumerating the four bucket boundaries, but it says nothing about whether 'as of' defaults to today, which currency/entity scope applies, or that the call is a non-destructive read.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that defines the metric and its buckets with zero filler. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but the definition still leaves the only input unexplained and gives no routing guidance among four related delinquency/churn siblings. For an analytics tool with an undocumented date parameter, this is thin.

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% and the single optional parameter as_of is never mentioned in the description, so its purpose (reporting date for the aging calculation) and its accepted format are undocumented everywhere. Default-to-current-date behavior is left entirely to inference.

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 names the resource precisely ('faturas vencidas e não pagas') and the exact aging buckets it reports (01-30, 31-60, 61-90, 90+), so an agent knows the shape of the result. It stops short of differentiating itself from the adjacent delinquency_by_month and delinquent_customers siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose this tool over delinquency_by_month (time series) or delinquent_customers (per-customer list), even though those siblings are named in the same server. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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