xero_reports_aged_receivables

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It indicates the tool retrieves a report (implying read-only) but does not confirm this, nor does it disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return details. For a report tool, more transparency about the data scope and formatting is expected.

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 12 words, front-loading the core action and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition. It earns its place by efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.

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?

With a simple single-parameter input, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about the report's structure (e.g., age buckets, currency, totals), which would aid the agent in interpreting results or making filtering decisions.

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%, with the 'date' parameter having a format description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. According to the rubric, with high coverage, baseline 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 tool as retrieving an Aged Receivables report and specifies it shows outstanding customer invoices by age. The verb 'Get' and resource 'Aged Receivables report' are specific. While it implicitly differentiates from the sibling 'aged_payables' by mentioning receivables, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, recommended scenarios, or exclude cases where other tools (e.g., aged_payables) would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the name and sibling context.

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