Get Aged Creditors

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description's 'Read-only' restates that. It adds modest context by disclosing the report's grouping and bucketing behavior, but does not cover edge behavior such as whether only unpaid bills appear or how the as_of_date shifts buckets. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no wasted words: definition front-loaded, then usage triggers, then safety caveat. The example phrasings earn their place as direct agent-routing signals. Slightly long, but every clause contributes.

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 2 optional params, no output schema, and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete: it implies the return shape via buckets, gives clear invocation triggers, and is consistent with annotations. Minor gaps are currency/format details and alternative routing (e.g., get_aged_debtors), which are non-critical for an agent deciding whether to call.

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% — both as_of_date and contact_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (aged creditors report), its structure (grouped by supplier), and precise ageing buckets (current/not-yet-due, 1-30, 31-60, 61-90, 90+). The 'creditors' framing clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_aged_debtors, and the supplier-payment focus separates it from generic get_bills.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete user phrasings ('who do I owe', 'what bills are due', 'show aged payables', planning supplier payments). However, it does not name alternatives or give when-not-to-use exclusions, so it stops short of the full 5.

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