get_aged_balance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like, whether it returns per-customer details or totals, or any prerequisites. The only hint is the name 'get', which implies read-only, but no additional context is given. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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, concise sentence that directly states the core function and the aging buckets. It is front-loaded with the essential information and contains no filler or redundant wording. Every word serves the purpose.

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 the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a simple parameter set, the description should compensate by explaining the return structure or the meaning of the aging buckets. It does not. An agent would not know if the tool returns a list of customers, aggregated amounts, or a report object. The description covers only the basic concept, leaving significant gaps for invocation and result interpretation.

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?

The schema provides complete coverage for the single 'type' parameter with a description ('customer' ou 'supplier'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any extra meaning about the parameter; it actually uses 'clients' in the description, which could be confusing since the parameter accepts both customer and supplier. However, since the schema is self-sufficient, the description need not elaborate further.

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 tool as returning an aged customer balance with specific aging buckets (0-30j, 31-60j, 61-90j, +90j). The verb is implied by the name 'get', and the resource is well-specified. However, it mentions only 'clients' while the schema supports both 'customer' and 'supplier', which slightly narrows the scope and misses the opportunity to distinguish from other reports like get_customer_statement.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what the report contains, but does not mention if it should be used for customer aging, supplier aging, or how it differs from other accounting tools like get_trial_balance. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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