merit_get_customer_debts_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose useful behaviors: debtDate defaults to today when omitted, empty customerName selects all customers, and the underlying call is a POST. But it says nothing about return shape, pagination, or whether repeated calls are safe, which matters given the POST verb for a 'get' report.

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 pack in the resource, endpoint, filter semantics, sentinel behavior, and a default, all front-loaded and without filler. Only minor redundancy exists where 'overDueDays filters exceeded days' overlaps with the schema's 'Minimum overdue days'.

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 report tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the parameter side well but omits what the report actually returns and whether at least one of customerName/customerId is expected. The agent can call it correctly on inputs, but not on interpreting the result or knowing the required call shape.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema: it exposes the mutually-inclusive relationship between customerName and customerId, the special meaning of an empty customerName string, and the debtDate default — none of which the schema states.

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 ('Customer debts report') and the exact endpoint (POST /api/v1/getcustdebtrep), and the tool name supplies the action 'get'. It is distinct from sibling report tools like merit_get_customer_payments_report or merit_get_sales_report by the specific 'debts' resource, but it does not explicitly call out those siblings.

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 gives solid invocation guidance: which parameter to provide (customerName or customerId), the empty-string-all-customers sentinel, the overDueDays filter, and the debtDate default. However, it never states when to choose this tool over sibling report tools or any exclusions, leaving tool-selection context implied.

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