get_receivables

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what counts as outstanding and, importantly, reveals that as_of_date is 'informational only'—a non-obvious trait that prevents an agent from assuming date filtering. It does not cover auth or pagination, but for a simple read tool the core behavior is well disclosed.

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 compact and well-structured: one clear purpose sentence followed by two documented parameter lines. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important caveat is placed directly beside the relevant parameter.

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?

The tool has only two optional parameters and an output schema, so the return shape does not need to be explained. All parameters are described, the purpose is precise, and the only external pointer is a docs reference for a caveat that is also summarized inline. An agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 compensate. It does: company is explained with its default fallback behavior, and as_of_date is given an ISO format plus the crucial caveat that it is currently informational only. Both parameters receive meaning the schema entirely lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get outstanding receivables' and then precisely defines the scope as ledgers under 'Sundry Debtors' with a non-zero balance owed to the company. This makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_payables.

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 definition gives clear context for when to use the tool: when outstanding receivables under Sundry Debtors are needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the precise scope and the sibling set make the intended use obvious.

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