get_payable_aging_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about report contents, balance calculation, date interpretation, zero-balance handling, or default behavior. The description reveals no meaningful behavioral traits beyond the operation itself.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it is severely under-specified for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema. It functions more like a stub than a carefully concise description, so it does not earn its place by carrying necessary 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?

With 8 parameters, 25% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-line description is inadequate. The agent lacks essential context about date handling, accounting basis, filtering, and return structure, leaving the definition incomplete for a report tool of this complexity.

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 only 25%, and the description itself mentions no parameters. It does not clarify ambiguous fields like noneZero, showZero, noneTransactions, basis, or accountIds, so an agent cannot make informed parameter decisions from this definition.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the payable aging summary report.' This clearly identifies the deliverable and distinguishes it from the sibling get_receivable_aging_summary by the 'payable' qualifier. However, it does not explicitly call out that sibling or any scope boundaries, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_receivable_aging_summary, list_bills, or open_bill. The intended use is implied by the name, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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