sherweb_customers_accounts_receivable

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get') and describes the returned information: receivable charges with cost, quantity, and currency. It does not cover pagination or error behavior, but for a straightforward read tool the disclosure is sufficient.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main purpose and includes only meaningful details about charge types and returned fields.

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 two-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description provides enough context: the operation, the billing-period scope, and the return fields. It could be more complete by explicitly contrasting with payable charges or charge details, but it is not materially incomplete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both customerId and date. The description reinforces the billing-period concept but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline.

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 ('Get') and names the exact resource: receivable charges billed to a customer for a billing period. It further specifies charge categories (recurring, usage, setup) and key attributes (cost, quantity, currency), making it easy to distinguish from sibling billing tools like payable charges.

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 phrase 'charges you bill a customer' provides clear context that this tool is for customer receivables, implicitly contrasting with payable/charge-detail siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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