Payables Aging Report

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add operational context. It adds the scope restriction to unpaid purchase invoices, but says nothing about currency handling, supplier grouping behavior, or what aging buckets/periods are produced.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no filler or restatement of the name.

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 and read-only, but there is no output schema, so the description should have described the shape of the report (aging buckets, per-supplier rows). As written, an agent knows what goes in but not what comes out.

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?

With 100% schema coverage on the single as_of_date parameter (including the YYYY-MM-DD format and default-today behavior), the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description's mention of a 'specific cutoff' adds only marginal meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (compute), a specific artifact (payables aging by supplier), and the data source (unpaid purchase invoices). It is clearly distinct from the sibling compute_receivables_aging and from list_purchase_invoices.

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?

It explains how to get a specific cutoff via as_of_date, which is useful usage guidance, but never says when to reach for this tool versus compute_receivables_aging, month_end_close_checklist, or the raw invoice listers. Usage is implied rather than contrasted.

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