reconstructed_aged_receivables

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real value beyond them: it is derived rather than authoritative, ages by transaction date with oldest-first allocation, and returns a control-account total with a party-sum reconciliation check. Only minor gaps remain (e.g., no rate/size behavior), which the output schema covers.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the identity and the authoritative=false caveat come first, followed by the aging method and return shape. Every clause carries information, though the sentence is long and packs several distinct facts.

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?

With annotations and an output schema present, the description is not obligated to restate safety or return values, and it does cover trust level and methodology well. The unresolved gap is parameter meaning for as_at and include_zero at 0% schema coverage, which leaves the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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, and the description does not compensate: 'as at a date' loosely hints at as_at but gives no format, while include_zero is never mentioned at all. An agent must guess at both the date format and the default-inclusion behavior.

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 receivables), the source ledger (/transactions), and the aging method (transaction date, oldest-first allocation). It explicitly distinguishes itself from Manager's Aged Receivables report and, by naming the reconstructed variety, from sibling aged_receivables.

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?

Clearly signals when this tool is appropriate by contrasting it with the authoritative Manager's report and warning 'Never treat as official', which steers the agent to it only for ledger-based reconstruction. It does not, however, name the specific alternative (aged_receivables) the agent should call when it wants the official figure.

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