Lower My Bill

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behaviour the annotations do not: it states the tool returns programmes with eligibility criteria and application steps, which tells the agent what kind of answer to expect from an open-world lookup.

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?

Strongly front-loaded: purpose first, then examples, then return shape. The example list is long but each phrasing targets a distinct query intent an agent may have to match against, so the length is largely earned.

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 three fully documented parameters, rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies what is missing: what it returns (qualifying criteria and how to apply). Only the ambiguity versus sibling tools leaves a small gap.

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%, so bill/state/country are each fully documented with accepted values and defaults; baseline 3 applies. The description's examples reinforce how the 'bill' argument is phrased but add no syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 title and first sentence name a specific resource ('official help programmes for a bill') and the example phrasings make the retrieval purpose unmistakable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_bill_script or get_call_reminder, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 six quoted example queries implicitly define the situations this tool is for (subsidy/social-tariff questions), which is stronger than nothing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use rule and no naming of the sibling tools as alternatives, so routing between the three siblings is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: when the provider does not sell the specified bill, it discloses that provider_note reports this and a general script is returned instead.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a useful but fairly long list of seven example phrasings. The examples earn their place for semantic matching, though the block is verbose relative to the rest.

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 all parameters documented at 100% and annotations covering safety, the description covers inputs and the provider-mismatch fallback. It does not describe the shape of the returned script, but for a read-only generator with no output schema this gap is minor.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description only adds the loose guidance that bill type, provider, or both may be supplied, which is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (a call script to lower a bill) and reinforces it with realistic user-request phrasings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_bill_help, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from the text alone.

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 example request list ('help me lower my Comcast bill', 'lower my Council Tax', etc.) gives strong concrete context for when to invoke it, and 'Give the bill type, the provider, or both' clarifies input expectations. There are no explicit exclusions or comparisons to the sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations by disclosing that nothing is stored and detailing the generated artifact: an all-day event ~30 days before deal end, containing the full script, offers and confirm-in-writing message, with alerts at 9am the day before and on the day. This is rich behavioral context an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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?

Three tight sentences that lead with the purpose and then layer output and cross-tool routing. Efficient, though the opening restates the title verbatim and the second sentence is densely packed.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by describing the .ics contents and alert schedule. It stops short of specifying the exact return form (file contents vs. URL), leaving a minor gap for a generation tool.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the bill/provider/country fallbacks. The description only reinforces that deal_ends anchors the event timing, adding little beyond the structured data; 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?

States a specific verb and concrete output: it produces a calendar file (.ics) for a reminder to call before a deal ends. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_bill_script, which is referenced as the related-but-different tool.

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?

Explains the trigger context (deal_ends must be given) and names the relationship to get_bill_script (which links here as add_to_calendar). It does not spell out when NOT to use it, but the routing condition is clear.

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