receivable_payable_aging

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, so the description adds only that it is an aged report bucketed by days overdue. This is adequate but does not disclose additional behaviors like potential size limits or performance implications.

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, concise but under-informative. It front-loads the purpose but fails to elaborate on usage or parameters, so it does not earn its place beyond stating the obvious.

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 5 parameters and an output schema, the description lacks detail about how parameters affect output or what the report contains. It does not explain return structure or usage context, leaving the agent inadequately informed.

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 description does not explain any of the 5 parameters (as_of, limit, instance, direction, top_partners). The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone, which is insufficient.

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 generates an aged report for receivables/payables bucketed by days overdue, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like accounting_health_summary or data_quality_report.

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 such as accounting_health_summary or search_records. The description does not mention prerequisites, direction selection, or context for choosing receivables vs payables.

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