aged_payables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint, and the description reinforces read-only while adding a genuinely non-obvious behavior: the tool rejects the from_date/to_date inputs it appears to accept. It still says nothing about result scope or limits, but with annotations covering the safety profile this is solid added context.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core scope, then the exclusions, then the alternative. Every clause carries distinct information with no repetition.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Combined with annotations and the explicit parameter-rejection note, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and to choose it over reconstructed_aged_payables.

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 0% and both parameters are undocumented in the schema, but the description compensates by telling the agent that from_date/to_date are rejected outright — precisely the information needed to avoid misusing them. It does not explain accepted formats simply because none are accepted.

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?

States the specific resource (CURRENT supplier balances) and explicitly disclaims what the name would imply (not an aged report), then names the sibling reconstructed_aged_payables as the alternative. An agent can distinguish it from the rest of the ledger/report family without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit exclusions ('not as at any past date; rejects from_date/to_date') and routes the agent to the correct alternative for the as-at case. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered with the sibling named.

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