Payables Aging Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. The description adds the behavioral detail that the computation is from unpaid purchase invoices, but no additional traits beyond what annotations provide. It is consistent with annotations.

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 is clear and to the point. It could potentially be expanded slightly for structure, but it is already concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description should indicate what the tool returns (e.g., aging buckets, totals by period) to help the agent understand the result. The description only explains the input and data source, leaving the output format entirely unspecified, which is a significant gap for a compute tool.

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 100% for the single parameter as_of_date, which already explains its format and default. The description adds the phrase 'for a specific cutoff,' which marginally reinforces the schema but does not provide new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 computes payables aging by supplier from unpaid purchase invoices, distinguishing it from sibling tools like compute_receivables_aging which handles receivables. The verb 'compute' and resource 'payables aging' are specific and unambiguous.

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 mentions passing as_of_date for a specific cutoff, which gives some usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compute_receivables_aging or provide any when-not scenarios. Usage is inferred from the purpose rather than explicitly guided.

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