Generate an overdue receivables report grouped by days past due (1–30, 31–60, 61–90, 90+) to identify who owes money and prioritize collections.
Who owes money past the due date, grouped by how late (1-30, 31-60, 61-90, 90+ days).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| as_of | No | YYYY-MM-DD; defaults to today |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and access profile are covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying the exact aging buckets used for grouping, which is 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the core question the report answers and the grouping buckets.
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?
This is a simple read-only report with one optional, fully documented parameter and an output schema, so return values need not be explained in the description. The description supplies the remaining key context: what the report groups and how.
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%, with as_of fully documented in the schema as YYYY-MM-DD defaulting to today. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the resource and behavior: money owed past the due date, grouped into aging buckets. It is easy to distinguish from most siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives such as revenue_report or list_invoices.
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 implies when to use the tool by framing it as an overdue aging report, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with related tools. An agent can infer the purpose, but routing against siblings like revenue_report or list_invoices is left to context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.