aged_receivables

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

The phrase 'read-only snapshot' communicates that the tool is non-mutating and represents a point-in-time balance, which is useful since no annotations are provided. However, it does not disclose date-range behavior, aging-bucket semantics, or whether the snapshot reflects a specific as-of date. For a read-only report this is minimal but arguably sufficient at a basic level.

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 concise sentence with no filler and leads with the resource name. The paraphrase 'outstanding customer balances' adds clarity but is slightly redundant with 'aged receivables.' It earns a strong score for brevity, though it could have used the saved space for parameter or usage detail.

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 tool is simple, with only two optional date fields and an output schema, so the minimal description may be enough for basic identification. However, without usage guidance or date-range semantics, it is not fully complete. It sits at the minimum viable level.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention from_date or to_date at all. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the meaning of the date range, defaults, and interpretation (e.g., inclusive boundaries, as-of date) is absent. The description fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 identifies the resource ('aged receivables') and clarifies it as 'outstanding customer balances,' with 'read-only snapshot' indicating the operation type. It distinguishes from siblings like aged_payables by specifying customer balances, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list.'

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it does not mention aged_payables, list_records, or other report tools. The only context is 'read-only snapshot,' which implies a reporting use but does not state conditions for choosing it. This leaves the agent to infer selection 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.