Receivables and payables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content about what is returned (dates, status, days overdue, totals), but says nothing about pagination, date-range limits, or how overdue is computed relative to 'today'.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the core value (what money is owed in each direction) is front-loaded. The trailing field list is dense but informative rather than wasteful.

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 no output schema, the description does a decent job of enumerating return fields and totals, which partially compensates. But for a 4-parameter tool with 50% schema coverage, the silence on status/direction semantics and on farm_id vs group_id exclusivity leaves real gaps.

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 coverage is only 50%: farm_id and group_id carry descriptions, while status and direction do not. The description merely restates three of the four status values already given by the schema enum (and omits 'all'), and never mentions the direction parameter or the farm_id/group_id scoping rule, so it adds essentially nothing beyond the schema.

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 concrete resource — receivables and payables with their key fields (issue/due/paid dates, status, days overdue) plus totals — so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. However, there is no verb framing (e.g. 'list'/'get') and no explicit differentiation from financial siblings such as finance_dashboard, cash_flow or bank_movements.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the tool for outstanding customer/supplier balances versus the dashboard/forecast siblings, with nothing in the text to confirm or exclude that choice.

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