Get Bill Providers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds significant behavioral context beyond them: category-dependent response shapes, the fact that UTILITYBILLS returns all electricity providers, and how returned codes map to monei_pay_bill parameters. This does not contradict the 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?

Description is long but well-organized with Routing, Args, Returns, and Examples sections, and the critical prerequisite is front-loaded. It earns its length because there is no output schema. Minor redundancy with the schema's Args descriptions prevents a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying return shapes for both UTILITYBILLS and the other categories, including the meaning of each field for downstream use. Examples cover the main category types, and routing rules are explicit, so an agent has enough context to invoke the tool 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by mapping billerCode/itemCode to monei_pay_bill fields and providing real examples for category/billerName combinations, helping the agent choose correct values beyond the schema alone.

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?

Description clearly states it returns available billers and packages for a bill category, using a specific verb and resource. It goes further to distinguish itself as the prerequisite lookup step before monei_pay_bill, separating it from payment and history siblings.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Always call this before monei_pay_bill' and details category-specific routing, including when billerName is required and when it is not. Concrete examples show query-to-argument mapping. It does not explicitly contrast with monei_get_bill_history for history lookups, so it stops short of full when-not/alternative coverage.

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