report_aged_payables

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implicitly identifies a read-only reporting operation and flags the date-parameter constraint, but says nothing about output shape, row granularity, totals, or performance/limits.

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 tight sentences, both front-loaded with the highest-value information: what the report is, then the parameter caveat that would otherwise cause a failed call. 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?

For a report tool with a deeply nested 13-field parameter object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It covers the core purpose and the date parameter but omits the aging output structure the agent would need to interpret results.

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 properties are individually documented in the schema, but the required `params` wrapper itself has no schema description, and the description adds meaning only for report_date. It does not clarify the overlapping aging_period vs. days_per_aging_period parameters or how date_macro interacts with aging_method.

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?

Names a specific report (Accounts Payable Aging Summary) and states exactly what it returns: outstanding vendor balances grouped by aging period. That distinguishes it well from report_aged_receivables and from the transaction-level report_aged_payable_detail, though it never names those siblings 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?

Provides one concrete usage constraint (use report_date, not start_date/end_date), which prevents a real error. It gives no guidance on when to choose this summary over report_aged_payable_detail or report_vendor_balance, leaving the sibling routing to be inferred from the name alone.

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