Accounts Payable Aging Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral details: the age bucket definitions, the return summary/breakdown structure, and the ability to filter by min_amount and supplier_number. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-organized with clear sections: purpose, example questions, arguments, return value, age buckets, and examples. It is dense with useful information yet remains scannable and free of fluff. Every section contributes to understanding the tool.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what parameters to use, what the report includes, age bucket definitions, and practical examples. It could be more explicit about the exact output structure (e.g., field names), but for a report tool this is reasonably complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Only include invoices with balance >= this amount'). The description's 'Args' section mostly restates the schema, and the examples (min_amount=50000, supplier_number='1') add minor flavor but no new semantic meaning. It meets the baseline for full schema coverage but doesn't elevate it.

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 'Generate an accounts payable aging report for unpaid supplier invoices,' a specific verb and resource. The example questions (e.g., 'What supplier invoices are overdue?') further clarify the tool's scope and distinguish it from neighboring invoice and report tools.

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 example questions effectively convey when to use the tool (e.g., 'Show me aging breakdown of payables'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, though the context is clear enough from the questions.

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