aged_payables

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

With no annotations, the description only discloses 'read-only' but fails to mention other traits like required permissions, data scope (e.g., all payables or filtered), or performance implications. The output schema exists but is not described.

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?

Extremely brief (3 words), but under-specification rather than conciseness. No structure, and critical information about parameters and usage is omitted.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks details about what the snapshot includes (e.g., aging buckets, totals). It does not address the optional date parameters, leaving gaps for an agent to use correctly.

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 description does not mention any parameters, despite there being two optional parameters (to_date, from_date) with 0% schema description coverage. An agent cannot infer their meaning or format.

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 it provides a snapshot of aged payables, which matches the tool name. It is read-only, distinguishing it from mutation tools, but less explicitly from sibling financial reports like aged_receivables.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like bank_balances or profit_and_loss. The description does not mention prerequisites, date range handling, or any context-specific recommendations.

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