receivable_payable_aging

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

Annotations clearly declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds that the report is 'bucketed by days overdue', clarifying the output format. No contradictions exist.

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 of 9 words, highly concise and front-loaded. However, it is slightly too terse and could include additional useful context without being verbose.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema and strong annotations, the description lacks details on the aging bucket criteria, typical use cases, or report contents. It is adequate but could benefit from more context for a financial reporting tool.

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 descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only describes the output bucketing. Baseline score of 3 applies due to high coverage.

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 states it provides an aged receivable/payable report bucketed by days overdue, specifying a distinct resource and action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like accounting_health_summary (health check) and data_quality_report (data quality).

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 implies the tool is for aging analysis but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like business_pack_report or upgrade_risk_report. No when-not or conditional usage context is given.

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