report_aged_receivable_detail

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the report contains and the date-parameter constraint, but says nothing about permissions, result volume, pagination, whether it is read-only, or how long it takes to run for large books — all material for a reporting tool with no annotation coverage.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the report's identity and ending with the one parameter gotcha the agent most needs. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 a report tool with a rich, mostly self-describing nested schema and no output schema, the description covers what the report is and the key date-parameter constraint. It is thin on sibling differentiation and on the overlapping aging-period parameters, but the core calling information is present.

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 largely self-documented in the schema (customer, class, aging_method, aging_period, etc.), so the schema does most of the work. The description adds one genuinely useful clarification — that this report uses report_date rather than start_date/end_date — but leaves the date_macro vs. report_date interaction and the two overlapping period parameters (aging_period vs. days_per_aging_period) unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: runs an Accounts Receivable Aging Detail report that shows individual open invoices grouped by aging period. The word 'Detail' and 'individual open invoices' implicitly separate it from the summary-level report_aged_receivables sibling, but that sibling is never named, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'individual open invoices' suggests it is the right pick when per-invoice aging detail is needed rather than summary buckets. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative such as report_aged_receivables, so an agent must infer the choice from the tool name.

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