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

Annotations already declare the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond that by stating it INSERTs a bill_requests row and fires an admin push notification, which clarifies the side effects and internal state change. It does not cover permissions, rate limits, or error behavior, but the added side-effect disclosure is substantial.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by side-effect and split_type details. Every sentence adds useful information with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotation coverage for safety, the description adequately explains the tool's action and one parameter. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it should do more to describe the remaining three parameters and provide usage context relative to siblings. The result is acceptable but incomplete for an agent that needs to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must explain all four parameters. It only clarifies split_type (defaults to 'full', pass 'personal' for German-style per-device splits), while note, table_id, and agent_session_id receive no explanation. This leaves three of four parameters undocumented and forces the agent to guess their meaning and format.

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 a specific verb ('Ask the venue to bring the bill') and resource ('the bill for a table'), making it immediately distinguishable from siblings like waiter_call or place_order. It is not a tautology of the name and tells the agent exactly what action is performed.

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 does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as waiter_call or get_order_status, nor does it mention any prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions. The only usage hint is implied by the action itself, which is insufficient for an agent choosing among 26 sibling tools.

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