freee_ar_aging

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

Without annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the classification logic (aging buckets based on issue_date), aggregation behavior, and output (overdue highlights). While it doesn't detail side effects or exact return format, the description is sufficiently transparent for an analysis tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core functionality and followed by a usage note. Every sentence is informative and necessary, with no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 the low complexity (two optional parameters, no output schema) and rich sibling context, the description adequately covers what the tool does and its intended use. It lacks explicit output structure details, but for a standard aging analysis, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (both parameters described). The description adds marginal value beyond schema by mentioning 'by days since issue_date', which relates to as_of_date. However, no additional format or usage details are provided beyond what the schema already covers, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 performs accounts receivable aging analysis, classifying unsettled deals into specific aging buckets by days since issue_date, aggregating by partner, and highlighting overdue receivables. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the exact analysis type.

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 explicitly mentions usage for cash flow risk assessment and collection prioritization, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the purpose is well-defined enough to avoid misuse.

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