accounting_health_across_instances

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a vague hint of multi-instance scope ('fanned out across instances') but doesn't disclose additional behaviors like output aggregation or performance implications. It doesn't contradict annotations, and the annotation coverage reduces the burden, so a middling score is appropriate.

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 extremely concise (one phrase), but it's cryptic and lacks structure. It doesn't front-load a clear purpose; instead, it uses jargon ('partner-network sweep') that obscures meaning. Conciseness is present but at the expense of clarity, making it only minimally acceptable.

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's complexity (multi-instance, aging direction, top-partner filtering) and the availability of an output schema, the description should explain the aggregation behavior and scope. It fails to describe what 'fanned out' means operationally, how instances are selected, or what the response contains. The schema and annotations help, but the description leaves critical gaps for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% — all four parameters (as_of, direction, instances, top_partners) have detailed descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies; it neither enriches nor harms parameter understanding.

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 uses cryptic language like 'fanned out across instances' and 'the partner-network sweep' without specifying that it's a read-only AR/AP aging query across multiple instances. It doesn't clearly state the resource or action, making it hard to distinguish from sibling tools like receivable_payable_aging or accounting_health_summary.

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 (e.g., single-instance aging tools or other cross-instance queries). The description gives no context for selecting it based on use case, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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