Get Aged Debtors

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the report's output structure (grouping by contact, bucketing by days past due), which goes beyond the schema. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core definition, then usage triggers, and a final read-only note. No filler, every sentence 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?

For a simple read-only report with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and output shape. It doesn't mention pagination or result format, but these are less critical given the low complexity.

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%, with clear descriptions for as_of_date and contact_id. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond saying the report can be scoped, so the baseline 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 clearly identifies the resource ('aged debtors report') and what it does: lists outstanding invoices grouped by contact with ageing buckets. The buckets are enumerated, and the 'debtors' wording differentiates it from the sibling get_aged_creditors.

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?

It provides explicit trigger queries ('who owes me money', 'what's in our debtors book', etc.) and a use case (picking clients to chase). It does not explicitly contrast with get_aged_creditors or state when not to use it, but the examples make the intended scenario clear.

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