receivables_health

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains the report composition (aging buckets, overdue share, top customers, verdict) and the timezone default. The word 'Report' implies a read-only operation, though it doesn't explicitly state that no data is modified.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by a compact paragraph explaining the report logic and a well-structured Args list. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the report's scope, the aging bucket definitions, the verdict logic, and all parameters, making it fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: each of the five parameters is documented with its meaning and default value, including the verdict threshold semantics for overdue_pct_at_risk and overdue_pct_off_track.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Report AR/AP aging and who owes what, in one call.' It then details the aging buckets and verdict, clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling report tools like inventory_risk or business_pulse by focusing on receivables/payables aging.

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 clearly implies the tool is for AR/AP aging reports, and the first sentence states a use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit usage guidelines.

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