freeagent_aged_creditors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it filters to unpaid supplier bills and organizes them into overdue buckets, which explains the report's structure. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with the key term 'Aged creditors' and immediately explain what the report does. No filler or redundant information.

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 simple, read-only report with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and what it shows. It doesn't detail the exact response structure but the mention of 'bucketed' hints at the output. Slightly more detail about the asAt parameter could improve it, but it's not necessary.

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 100% and the only parameter (asAt) is fully described with format and default value. The tool description does not add any extra parameter information, which is acceptable since the schema carries the burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: it shows unpaid supplier bills bucketed by how overdue they are. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool freeagent_aged_debtors (which presumably covers customer invoices) by explicitly mentioning 'supplier bills' and 'what the company owes.'

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 context is implied rather than explicit. The description indicates this is for viewing supplier-related aged balances, which implies using it when you need creditor aging info, but it does not directly reference alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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