aged_receivables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral fact the annotations do not carry: that the tool rejects from_date/to_date despite those parameters existing in the schema.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the primary scope statement, followed by the negative constraint and the alternative. Every clause carries distinct information with no repetition of the name or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with a clear scope, an explicit exclusion, and a routing alternative, the definition gives an agent everything needed to select and invoke it 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 carry the burden, and it does the crucial part: it declares that from_date/to_date are rejected, telling the agent these two parameters must be omitted. It does not explain accepted value formats, but since both parameters are unusable that gap is moot.

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 states the exact resource and scope: 'CURRENT customer balances only (read-only)'. It pre-empts the natural misreading of the name 'aged_receivables' by explicitly disclaiming that it is not aged, and names the sibling tool that is.

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?

It gives explicit when-not guidance ('Not an aged report and not as at any past date') and routes the agent to the correct alternative ('For a labelled as-at reconstruction use reconstructed_aged_receivables'). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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