mess_get_bill

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the currency conversion (paise to rupees), mentions that bills may include projected future meals, and specifies the 404 error condition. While annotations cover read-only/non-destructive/idempotent/open-world properties, the description provides practical implementation details that help the agent use the tool correctly.

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 important implementation details (currency conversion, projected meals, error conditions), then parameter and return value information. Every sentence adds value with zero 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral details, parameter overview, and return format explanation. The output schema handles the detailed return structure, so the description appropriately focuses on semantic interpretation (paise to rupees conversion).

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%, but the description adds minimal parameter information. It mentions 'auth_key/session, optional month, optional year' but doesn't explain the relationship between auth_key and session, or provide format details. The schema itself has good descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description adds some but not comprehensive parameter semantics.

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 the user's mess bill for a month' with specific examples of when to use it ('how much do I owe?', 'what's my bill?'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mess_get_all_bills' by specifying it's for a single user's bill for a specific month.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (answering billing questions) and mentions a specific error condition (404 if registrations haven't opened). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'mess_get_all_bills' for different use cases.

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