Age the open invoices

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It covers what the tool does but omits important behavioral details such as output format, how limits apply, whether results are grouped, and potential side effects. The phrase 'Free and unlimited' is potentially misleading given the schema's 2000-row maximum.

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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core behavior and filtering options. The 'Free and unlimited' clause is slightly extraneous but not harmful.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only guide to expected results. It explains the aging logic but does not describe the result structure, how rows are grouped, ordering, or the default limit behavior, leaving important gaps for the agent.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for all four parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of as_of, client, and currency but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: breaking owed amounts into aging buckets (0-30, 31-60, 61-90, over 90 days) by due date, with options for client and currency. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 use case is clearly implied: use when you need an aging breakdown of open invoices as of a date. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from related statements tools.

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