wave_aged_receivables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, or what happens if data is missing. The minimal description fails to add transparency beyond the basic action.

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 concise sentence with no extraneous words. While it could include more context, it is front-loaded and efficiently states 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about what the report includes, how parameters affect output, or any limitations. It lacks sufficient detail for a complete understanding of tool behavior.

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% with both parameters documented (asOfDate and businessId). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's built-in descriptions. Since schema already does the work, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 generates an Aged Receivables (A/R Aging) report. The verb 'Generate' and specific resource 'A/R Aging report' make the purpose unambiguous and differentiate it from sibling report tools like wave_balance_sheet or wave_cashflow.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., other reports). The description lacks context about appropriate usage scenarios or any preconditions for generating the report.

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