reconstructed_aged_payables

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful caveat ('authoritative: false'), but defers all other caveats to another tool's description rather than stating them, leaving the agent to fetch them separately.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded. The parenthetical caveats are compressed but readable, and nothing is wasted.

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 values need not be explained, and the non-authoritative status is flagged. But the missing date format, the undocumented include_zero flag, and the deferred caveats leave gaps for a data-producing tool with zero schema description coverage.

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% for two parameters. The description's 'as at a date' loosely maps to as_at but gives no format syntax, and include_zero (default false) is not mentioned at all, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 a specific verb+resource (reconstructed aged payables), the source ledger (/transactions), and the as-at scope. It explicitly distinguishes itself from Manager's Aged Payables report and points to its sibling reconstructed_aged_receivables, so an agent can identify it without opening the 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?

The 'NOT Manager's Aged Payables report' note implicitly tells the agent when to prefer the authoritative sibling aged_payables, and the reference to reconstructed_aged_receivables implies shared applicability. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or prerequisite listing, so usage must be inferred.

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