accounting_health_across_instances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds 'sweep' which could imply a process, but no additional behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects) beyond what annotations provide.

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 but lacks structure. It is under-specified, not concise. Every sentence should add value, but this one leaves critical gaps, making it poor rather than concise.

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?

Given the presence of 4 parameters with no schema descriptions and a vague description, the tool definition is incomplete. An output schema exists but is not referenced. The description fails to provide adequate context for an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description does not explain any of the 4 parameters ('as_of', 'direction', 'instances', 'top_partners'). The description must compensate for the missing schema descriptions but fails entirely.

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 'AR/AP aging fanned out across instances — the partner-network sweep' indicates the resource (AR/AP aging across instances) but lacks a specific verb. The title is null, and the sibling tool 'receivable_payable_aging' likely covers similar single-instance functionality, but no differentiation is provided.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'receivable_payable_aging' or other aggregation tools. The phrase 'the partner-network sweep' is vague and does not clarify context or prerequisites.

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