im_break_aging_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only summarization operation with no destructive behavior, but lacks details on filtering behavior, performance, or what happens if no data matches. Basic transparency is present but not comprehensive.

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?

Two sentences: first clearly states the tool's function with specific details, second highlights its essential use case. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with key 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 tool is a simple summary report without an output schema, the description does not specify the return format (e.g., counts, amounts). For adequate completeness, it should hint at what the summary contains. The age buckets are well-stated, but more detail on returned data would improve it.

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% with each parameter described as 'Filter by ... (optional).' The description adds context that results are grouped by currency and entity, providing slight extra meaning. Baseline is 3, and the description meets it without exceeding.

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 summarizes open breaks by specific age buckets (0-2, 3-5, 6-10, 11-30, 30+ days) grouped by currency and entity. It also mentions the use case (daily ageing review), distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely provide raw break data.

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 says 'Essential for daily ageing review,' implying when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like im_get_aged_breaks for detailed data. The guidance is implied but not fully explicit.

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