accounting_health_across_instances

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

Annotations already declare safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds that it 'fans out across instances,' which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't disclose potential rate limits, data freshness, or what 'partner-network sweep' implies.

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 concise but too sparse. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, leading to ambiguity. It should be expanded to clearly explain the tool's purpose and parameters.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (cross-instance accounting health with 4 parameters), the description is incomplete. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the lack of parameter details and vague purpose leaves significant gaps.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter information. The agent is left to infer meaning from parameter names and defaults alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'AR/AP aging fanned out across instances — the partner-network sweep' gives a general sense of AR/AP aging across multiple instances but is vague. It doesn't precisely state what the tool returns or how it differs from siblings like receivable_payable_aging or accounting_health_summary.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools doing similar accounting or aggregation operations, the agent lacks context to choose appropriately.

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