What every client owes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the computed contents (per-currency totals, aging, oldest overdue invoice) and the verb 'Show' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, whether a Pro license is required despite the cryptic 'Pro.' suffix, or any additional access or output constraints.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose before adding detail, making it quick to parse. The trailing 'Pro.' is cryptic and adds little clarity, which prevents a perfect score, but the overall structure is efficient and waste-free.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry more weight. It explains what the report contains but leaves gaps around return format, how aging buckets are defined, currency handling details, and the meaning of 'Pro.' The tool is simple enough to be usable, but not fully specified.

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 input schema already fully documents as_of and limit. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the general implication that aging depends on the as_of date, which is already covered by the schema's own description.

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 names a specific verb ('Show'), a clear resource ('what is outstanding across every client'), and detailed output characteristics: totalled per currency, aged, oldest overdue invoice, and the clients carrying it. This scope clearly separates it from the sibling statement_build/statement_text/statement_pdf tools, which appear to be per-client or format-specific operations.

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 usage context is implied rather than explicit: 'across every client' signals this is an aggregate report, and the title 'What every client owes' reinforces that. However, there is no direct statement of when to choose this over statement_aging or other siblings, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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