report_aged_payable_detail

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does communicate that the output is per-bill detail bucketed by aging period rather than an aggregate, which is useful behavioral context. It omits that this is a read-only operation, what columns/format the result takes, and any row-volume or performance expectations for a potentially large open-bill set.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines scope and output shape, the second removes a likely parameter mistake. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded with zero filler.

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?

For a report generator with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the report contains and the key date-parameter convention, which is close to what an agent needs. The residual gap is the near-duplicate aging_period / days_per_aging_period parameters and the absence of any note on result size or format.

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?

The nested params object is heavily self-documented in the schema, but the top-level parameter itself carries no description, so the description's only parameter-level contribution is the report_date vs start_date/end_date convention. It adds no meaning for num_periods, aging_period vs days_per_aging_period (a genuine ambiguity in the schema), or aging_method beyond what the field descriptions already say.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Run an Accounts Payable Aging Detail report') and adds what the content is ('individual open bills grouped by aging period'), which implicitly separates it from the summary-level report_aged_payables sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the detail-vs-summary distinction from the title wording.

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 a clear directive about which date parameter to supply ('Uses report_date (not start_date/end_date)'), which is genuine usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over report_aged_payables, report_vendor_balance_detail, or report_vendor_expenses, and no prerequisites or preconditions are given.

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