aging

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the output contents and the empty condition, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or any other operational characteristics beyond the result details.

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 front-loads the purpose and provides a compact list of what the tool returns. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a parameterless report with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns and the key empty condition. It could optionally specify the aging buckets or time range, but the current description is sufficient for basic understanding and 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and there is no need for the description to explain parameters. The description adds no param details but also doesn't need to.

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 identifies the tool as 'Receivables aging' and specifies exactly what it provides: open balances by days past due, overdue share, and top overdue customers. This verb+resource structure is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'query' or 'reconcile'.

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 mentions the output is empty if the profile has no receivables, but that is a conditional outcome, not usage direction. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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