receivables_health

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

The description details that the tool composes open posted invoices and vendor bills into aging buckets, identifies top overdue customers, and provides a verdict based on overdue percentages. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (no destructive actions) or mention authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden but leaves some gaps.

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 succinct and well-structured, starting with a clear one-sentence summary, followed by details on what the report includes, and concluding with a bulleted argument list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers the purpose, behavioral composition (aging buckets, overdue share, top customers, verdict), and all parameters. The sibling context (other report tools) does not necessitate additional differentiation here.

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 0% description coverage, but the description includes a full Args section that explains each parameter (top_n, timezone_offset, company, overdue_pct_at_risk, overdue_pct_off_track) with defaults and context, such as 'timezone_offset: default 7 = Asia/Ho_Chi_Minh.' This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Report AR/AP aging and who owes what, in one call.' It specifies the verb 'Report' and the resource 'AR/AP aging and who owes what,' distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on different reports (e.g., sales_snapshot, business_pulse).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for AR/AP aging but does not state when not to use or mention specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings.

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