Accounts payable ageing (leverantörsreskontra)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior context (bucketing by days past due, per-supplier grouping, highlighting the most overdue) but leaves return shape and 'most overdue' semantics undefined.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, the trailing phrase 'with the most overdue' is cryptic and reads as an incomplete clause rather than a clear behavioral statement.

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 read-only, single-optional-param report with no output schema, the description covers the general aggregation but not the output structure (bucket boundaries, per-supplier columns, what 'most overdue' returns). Adequate but with clear 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 description coverage is 100% and the single as_of parameter is already documented with a default of today. The description adds nothing about as_of, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific resource and semantics: unpaid supplier invoices bucketed by days past due, per supplier. An agent can distinguish this from receivables_aging by the payables scope, though the description never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts the two.

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 at all. The description doesn't tell the agent when to pick payables_aging over list_supplier_invoices, get_supplier_invoice, or receivables_aging, nor that it's a reporting/aggregation view rather than a raw list.

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