mess_get_all_bills

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the output format (JSON array with specific fields), clarifies that bills are in paise with conversion instructions, and notes it only includes non-zero bills. This enhances understanding without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by unit conversion instructions, parameter details, and return format. Every sentence adds value, such as clarifying paise-to-rupees conversion and specifying output fields. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the Args and Returns into a single section, but overall it's efficient and clear.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (retrieving historical billing data), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, output format, and unit conversion, and the presence of an output schema means return values don't need elaboration. However, it lacks details on error handling, pagination, or date ranges, which could be relevant for a tool fetching 'all months.'

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the 'params' argument as 'auth_key or session' and providing usage context in the Returns section. However, it doesn't detail parameter semantics beyond what's implied by authentication needs. With one parameter and partial compensation, this meets the baseline for adequate but not comprehensive coverage.

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's purpose: 'Get bill breakdown for all months with a non-zero bill.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('bill breakdown'), and distinguishes it from sibling 'mess_get_bill' by indicating it retrieves all months. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other billing-related tools like 'mess_get_extras_in_range' or 'mess_get_registrations' that might involve financial data.

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 by specifying it retrieves 'all months with a non-zero bill,' suggesting it should be used when comprehensive billing history is needed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mess_get_bill' (which likely retrieves a single bill) or other financial tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned beyond the authentication requirement.

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