GET /bill/:id (Bill)

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

The description adds minimal value beyond annotations. It states 'retrieval of expense data,' consistent with readOnlyHint=true, but fails to disclose that the promised table of returned fields is missing. No additional behavioral traits are described.

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 brief (2 sentences) but the second sentence refers to a non-existent table, making it misleading. Conciseness is acceptable but the missing content is a flaw.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, annotations present), the description should at least specify what fields are returned. Instead, it promises a table that is not provided, leaving the agent uninformed about the response structure.

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% for the single 'id' parameter. The description does not add any semantics or usage details beyond the schema, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves expense (despesa) data by ID, distinguishing it from list_bills (which lists multiple) and other get_* tools. However, it mentions a table that is not present, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_bills for querying multiple bills or other get_* tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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