freeagent_aged_debtors

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 clarity by defining the aging buckets and output focus, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral context such as how the aging is calculated or whether all customers are included. The description does not contradict the 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the key concept ('Aged debtors') and efficiently elaborates with bucket details. Every word contributes meaning; there is no redundancy.

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, the description adequately conveys the report's content and purpose. It clearly explains the output (aging buckets and who owes what) even without an output schema. Slight gap: it doesn't mention the optional 'asAt' parameter in the description, but the schema covers that.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter (asAt) with a clear date format and default. The description adds no extra parameter-specific detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 function: it lists unpaid customer invoices bucketed by aging periods. It explicitly defines the resource ('aged debtors') and the action ('shows who owes what and for how long'), and the name + description naturally distinguish it from the sibling 'freeagent_aged_creditors'.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when analyzing overdue receivables) but does not explicitly state when-not-to or mention alternatives like freeagent_aged_creditors. It gives a clear context but lacks exclusions or comparative guidance.

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