client_statements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does a good job: it reveals the inclusion filter (positive balance only), the ordering (balance descending), and the output characteristics (company-wide totals and aging bands). It does not explicitly state pagination or response format, but for a read-oriented report tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 efficient sentences deliver the scope, ordering, output highlights, and the intended workflow. There is no filler, and the most identifying information is front-loaded.

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 tool with two optional parameters, the description covers what is returned, who it covers, how it is sorted, and when to use it. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by the mention of totals and aging bands, and no critical calling prerequisite is omitted.

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 100%, so both parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for high coverage.

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 exactly what the tool returns: customer statements for every client with a positive balance, sorted by balance descending, with totals and aging bands. It also distinguishes this tool from the singular client_statement sibling by emphasizing 'every client' and company-wide scope.

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 description gives an explicit use case: 'Use it to see who owes money and how old the debt is before sending reminders with client_statement_email.' It names the related email tool, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer the singular client_statement tool instead, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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