receivable_payable_aging

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description doesn't contradict them. The description provides a good high-level behavior ('bucketed by days overdue') that complements annotations. However, it doesn't elaborate on side effects (though readOnly implies none) or specific data aggregation behavior, but given the annotations, this is adequate.

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 one sentence, concise and to the point. It communicates the core function without fluff. It could maybe expand on the output, but for a report tool, this is appropriately short.

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 description is minimal but an output schema is present, so return values don't need explanation. However, it doesn't mention the meaning of 'open-item lines' or the purpose of the 'limit' parameter, which could be ambiguous. The tool complexity is moderate (5 params, all documented), so more context would help. Given the output schema exists, it's acceptable but could be slightly more 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?

All parameters have descriptive schema descriptions: as_of (ISO date), limit (max lines), instance (optional Odoo instance), direction (receivable/payable), top_partners (max partners, capped). The description adds context by saying the report is 'bucketed by days overdue', which helps understand what 'as_of' and 'direction' mean. Since schema coverage is 100%, the parameter semantics are already well-covered, but the description reinforces the purpose.

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 produces an 'Aged receivable/payable report' with a specific structure (bucketed by days overdue). It effectively conveys the core purpose and distinguishes it from general reporting tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like `accounting_health_summary` or `business_pack_report`, which might also involve financial reports.

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 implies usage for generating aging reports but provides no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., configured Odoo connection, instance). Given sibling tools like `accounting_health_summary`, explicit when-to-use guidance is missing. The schema mentions 'instance' and 'direction', but the description doesn't clarify typical use cases.

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