search_bills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses pagination behavior ("Returns paginated results"), which is useful context, and "List" implies read-only, but it says nothing about permissions, result caps, sorting, or whether results are scoped to the caller.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before listing filters. Every sentence carries information, though the filter list largely duplicates the schema rather than earning extra space.

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 an eight-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation read tool, the core is covered: entity, filters, and paginated return. Missing scoping/permission notes and sorting behavior are modest gaps given the schema handles parameter detail.

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 eight parameters including formats and defaults. The description only restates the filter dimensions in prose, adding no syntax, default, or interaction semantics beyond the schema — the 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?

States a specific verb and resource, and glosses the accounting term ("bills (accounts payable)"), so an agent knows exactly what entity is returned. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling readers such as get_bill or search_bill_payments, so it falls short of a 5.

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 enumerated filter dimensions (status, vendor, date range, overdue) imply when this tool is useful, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over get_bill or search_bill_payments, nor any exclusion or prerequisite guidance.

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