accounting_health_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as the meaning of 'open' or that it only returns counts without detail, and it says nothing about the optional 'instance' parameter's effect on results.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose without padding. It is appropriately terse and front-loaded, though it could benefit from a bit more structure or a second sentence for context.

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 presence of an output schema, the return format may be documented there, but the description remains incomplete in core areas: it does not explain the 'instance' parameter, does not clarify the tool's single-instance scope versus siblings, and offers no usage guidance. The description is too minimal to be fully self-sufficient.

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 has one optional parameter 'instance' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description also fails to explain what 'instance' refers to or how it affects the output, leaving the agent without essential information for correct invocation.

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 states the tool provides receivable/payable item counts and draft invoice backlog, identifying its resource and action. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'receivable_payable_aging' or 'accounting_health_across_instances', which likely cover related but different scopes.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is likely for a single instance versus across instances, nor does it note any prerequisites or exclusions. The user is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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