ar_ap_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and clearly discloses that the tool is read-only. It also reveals non-obvious behavior: consignment settlement invoices appear in AR under their dealer, and company defaults to the default company. This gives an agent useful expectations beyond the basic operation.

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 three compact sentences that cover essence, special behavior, defaults, and safety. It is front-loaded with the core definition and wastes no words.

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 read-only report with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the inputs, scope, date basis, buckets, default company, and an important consignment nuance. It is complete enough to invoke correctly; a return-format example would be the only meaningful addition, but the report nature makes it optional.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the kind parameter with the exact values 'ar' and 'ap', defining as_on_date as the report cutoff date, and clarifying company's default behavior. Only the date format is left unspecified, which is a minor gap given the clear semantics.

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 states exactly what the tool computes: an aged AR or AP summary as of a given date, using the standard ERPNext ageing report with defined 30/60/90/120 buckets. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like financial_statement or sales_report without needing to open the schema.

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 phrase 'standard ERPNext ageing report' implies the tool is the canonical choice for ageing/AR-AP reporting, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. There are no exclusions, so the guidance is present only by implication.

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