Overdue invoices across all clients

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain behavior: receivables only (not payables), aging measured against due date with strict 'more than' semantics, part-payments excluded via amount-still-due, and per-org/per-currency totals in the output.

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, no filler; scope and aggregation are front-loaded and the calculation caveat (part-payments excluded) is placed last where it belongs.

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?

For a read-only report with no output schema, the description covers scope, aging basis, calculation rule and result granularity adequately. Minor gaps remain: no mention of sorting/pagination or how multi-currency totals are consolidated, which an agent producing a report might want to know.

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 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema, including the YYYY-MM-DD pattern and the demo-mode default. The description restates the 30/60/90 thresholds and the due-date basis but adds no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for full coverage applies.

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 resource (client invoices / receivables) and a precise scope (more than 30/60/90 days past due, across all connected orgs), which cleanly separates it from per-client siblings like client_health or practice_dashboard.

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 'across all connected orgs' phrasing implies a portfolio-wide reporting use case, but the description never says when to pick this over client_health, practice_dashboard or clients_trending_trouble, and names no alternatives or exclusions.

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