get_receivable_aging_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only conveys a read-like 'Get' operation. It does not explain that results differ by basis (cash vs accrual), that the date range is optional, how zero-balance accounts are handled given the noneZero/showZero flags, or what the report output looks like.

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 short and front-loaded with zero waste. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, since the sentence simply restates the tool's name and leaves all substantive content absent.

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?

Treating this as a report-generation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a single-sentence description, it is far from complete. An agent cannot determine the report's structure, how the date filter behaves when omitted, or what the zero/transaction boolean flags mean — making correct invocation largely guesswork.

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% (just fromDate/toDate have descriptions), so the description must compensate for 8 under-documented parameters, but it mentions none of them. Notably confusing parameters such as noneZero vs showZero, noneTransactions, and accountIds receive zero explanation in either the schema or the description.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('receivable aging summary report'), and the word 'receivable' distinguishes it from its payable counterpart. However, it is essentially the tool name restated with 'report' appended; it adds no information about what an aging summary contains (e.g., bucketed overdue amounts) beyond the name itself.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this report versus alternatives. A direct sibling, get_payable_aging_summary, exists, as do other report tools, but the description offers no selection criteria, no date-range prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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