請求状況照会

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is a read (取得する) and details the response contents, including the list of statuses and the inclusion of payment_instructions for unpaid orders. It does not mention error conditions or permissions, but covers the core behavior well.

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 action, and contains no filler. Every clause adds value, specifying the input (user ID), what is retrieved (billing statuses), and the special case of unpaid orders (payment instructions).

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value (list of statuses) and the conditional inclusion of payment instructions. It does not cover error cases or edge situations (e.g., missing user), but for this level of complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing user_id as the registered email address. The description repeats the email reference but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline of 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 a list of billing statuses (unpaid/paid) for all orders of a given user, using a specific verb (取得する) and resource (billing status list). It distinguishes from siblings like lookup_order or process_return by focusing on billing status, not order details or returns.

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 implies usage for billing status inquiries and provides clear context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No reference to sibling tools is made, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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