list-aged-receivables-by-contact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format of returned data. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds scope. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameters). It efficiently conveys key information without redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters (with 75% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like data format, pagination, or error handling, nor does it provide usage guidance relative to siblings. For a tool with moderate complexity and limited structured data, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 75%, with three of four parameters having descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'for a certain contact' (implied by contactId) and 'up to a report date' (implied by reportDate). It doesn't explain the optional date filters (invoicesFromDate, invoicesToDate) or provide additional context, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Lists the aged receivables in Xero' and specifies 'for a certain contact up to a report date.' This provides a specific verb ('Lists'), resource ('aged receivables'), and scope ('for a certain contact'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list-aged-payables-by-contact' or other list tools, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides minimal guidance: it mentions 'for a certain contact up to a report date,' which implies context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list-invoices' or 'list-aged-payables-by-contact.' No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is included, leaving usage unclear.

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