get_bill_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description says it 'gets' details but doesn't state the return format, whether it's read-only, failure modes when the contract line doesn't exist, or any pagination/limitations. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, it should disclose more about behavior beyond the mere action.

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 compact and has a clear structure with param docs laid out in a docstring format. It's front-loaded with the purpose statement. The param descriptions are very short but readable. No fluff or wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema, no annotations, and three undocumented parameters (0% schema coverage), the description is thin. It doesn't describe the returned bill plan data shape, how it relates to billing setup tools (check_project_billing_setup), or edge cases. Given the tool sits among richer billing-related siblings, more context would help an agent differentiate and use 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 compensate for the undocumented parameters. While it gives terse one-line hints for each param (e.g., 'Business unit code (e.g., 'UCD', 'UCB')'), these are minimal and don't add meaningful formatting or semantic detail beyond what the parameter names already imply. The contract_num and contract_line_num hints are near-tautological.

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+resource: 'Get the bill plan details for a specific contract line.' This clearly identifies the resource scope (a contract line) and distinguishes it from siblings like list_contracts or get_project_contracts. It loses a point because it doesn't clarify how this differs from the general query_peoplesoft_db or list_contracts tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like query_peoplesoft_db or list_contracts. The description provides no context about why one would choose this specific tool over the broader database query tool or other sibling tools. No exclusions or alternative references are given.

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