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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the text is cleaned, entities are decoded, and texts longer than 40,000 characters are clipped with a '[truncated]' marker. It does not cover error handling or authentication, but for a simple read-only tool these disclosed traits are substantial and useful.

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 only three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, then the usage prerequisite, then a key limitation. Every sentence provides necessary information with no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value (cleaned plain text ready to quote or summarize), how to obtain the parameter, and truncation behavior. It could be more explicit about the exact return type (string vs object), but overall it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already states text_id comes from get_bill include:['texts'], and the description adds that each version has a date and type, which helps the agent select the correct text_id among multiple versions. This extra detail improves parameter comprehension beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 returning 'the cleaned plain text of one bill-text version' and names the exact endpoint. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_bill_diff and get_bill_text_history by explicitly focusing on a single version's text rather than diffs or history.

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 clear contextual guidance: obtain text_id via get_bill with include:['texts'] and notes each version has a date and type for selection. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives such as get_bill_diff or get_bill_text_history, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use direction.

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