What every client owes

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly frames this as a read-style reporting tool and discloses the Pro restriction plus the key output behaviors (totals, aging, overdue ranking, oldest overdue invoice). It does not explicitly say 'read-only' or describe license failure behavior, but the language strongly implies a non-mutating report.

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 deliver the core functionality, the Pro qualifier, and the alternative tool without any filler. The most important fact, what the report contains, is front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool has only two optional, well-described parameters and no output schema, and the description gives a solid high-level account of the returned contents. The only slight gap is that 'Pro' is terse and does not explicitly state what happens if the license is absent, but the sibling license tools help fill that context.

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 the parameters as_of and limit are already fully documented with defaults, format, and constraints. The description does not need to add parameter semantics and adds only a slight thematic alignment with 'at a date' and 'worst first', so the baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description states a precise verb and resource: it reports receivables across every client at a given date, with totals, aging per currency, overdue ranking, and the oldest overdue invoice. It also explicitly contrasts itself with statement_aging, making the tool's distinct role clear.

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 tells the agent when to prefer this tool: when a cross-client receivables view is needed. It explicitly names statement_aging as the free per-client alternative, giving clear routing guidance and preventing confusion with a closely related sibling.

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