receivables_report

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing what is computed (aging buckets and per-client totals), but says nothing about time-window defaults, whether the report is aggregated or row-level, or how large the output may be.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates the computed sections; every clause earns its place. It borders on reading as a column list rather than prose, but nothing is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description does the right thing by sketching the return content (aging bucket breakdown plus per-client totals). Combined with the schema's documented defaults, an agent has enough to call it and interpret the result, though aggregation granularity and output shape remain implicit.

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 coverage is 75% and the schema already documents from, as_of, and company_id with defaults; the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The undocumented client_id is not clarified. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries most of the load.

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 a specific resource (crediti da incassare / receivables) and states exactly what it computes: unpaid installments, aging buckets 1-30/31-60/61-90/over 90, and per-client totals. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling reporting tools like client_statement or revenue_summary, though the description never names a sibling explicitly.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as client_statement, revenue_summary, or cashflow_forecast. The aging-bucket framing implies a collections/overdue context, but the agent must infer that; no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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