quickbooks_aged_receivable_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'Fetch' indicating a read operation but does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, data freshness, rate limits, or authentication requirements. For a simple report fetch, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a clear Args list. Every part is necessary, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 the existence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. The description covers input parameters well, but could mention output format or limitations. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: as_of_date format (YYYY-MM-DD), optional start_date and end_date with format, and columns as optional report columns. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, though column options are not specified.

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 'Fetch the QuickBooks aged receivables report' with a specific verb and resource, and adds purpose 'for AR aging and collections analysis'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like quickbooks_aged_payable_report and other QuickBooks reports.

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 usage for AR aging and collections analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or guidance on when not to use it.

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