client_statements

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, lowering the bar. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the positive-balance filter, the descending sort, and that aging bands and company-wide totals are included, which shapes how an agent interprets 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, zero filler, with the core behavior front-loaded and the usage recommendation compactly appended.

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 aggregation tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough about returned content (per-client statements, totals, aging bands) and filtering for correct invocation. Only a small gap remains around output shape details.

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 (asOf, companyId) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's reference to debt age hints at the asOf semantics but adds no format or default detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (customer statements) with precise scope ('every client of the company with a positive balance'), ordering ('sorted by balance descending'), and content (totals, aging bands). This clearly distinguishes it from the singular sibling client_statement.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case ('see who owes money and how old the debt is') and points to the natural follow-up tool client_statement_email. It does not explicitly contrast with the singular client_statement sibling, so it falls just short of a full when/when-not guide.

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