receivables

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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the result contains open customer invoices with days overdue and an aging bucket, and by clarifying that min_days_overdue=0 includes everything still open. It stops short of covering pagination or full return structure, but it adds meaningful output context beyond 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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and waste-free: the first identifies the resource and returned attributes, the second explains the only parameter's meaningful values. There is no repetition or filler.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, parameter behavior, and key returned attributes. The main missing piece is an explicit routing cue versus invoice_detail or payables, plus any indication of pagination or result limits.

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 must carry the meaning of min_days_overdue. It does explain the important distinction that 1 returns only overdue invoices while 0 returns all still-open invoices, though it does not spell out values greater than 1 explicitly or state whether negative values are handled.

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 specific resource and scope: open customer invoices in Stripe, enriched with days overdue and an aging bucket. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings such as invoice_detail or payables, so an agent must infer that this is the list-level receivables aging tool rather than a single-invoice or vendor-bill tool.

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 gives a clear implied use case (reviewing open customer invoices by aging) and explains how min_days_overdue narrows the result set. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of invoice_detail, payables, or other siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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