freeagent_create_bill

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

The description says 'Record', which appropriately signals a state-changing operation and matches the annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects beyond creation, such as whether duplicate calls create duplicate bills, or whether special permissions are required. Annotations cover read-only/destructive/idempotent hints, but the description adds little independent behavioral context.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence contributes either to tool selection or to an efficient workflow. The RECEIPTS note is prominent without being verbose.

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 table with 12 parameters, the description plus fully covered schema is enough for an agent to construct a valid call. It does not explain return values, but there is no output schema and create-tool output is not usually self-serve. A small gap is not explicitly stating what to do if no email match is found, though it is reasonably implied.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing that every line requires a category and a value including tax, and it explains how fileBase64 and fileName should be supplied when a matching invoice is found in email tools. This is actionable semantics beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Record a supplier bill', with the parenthetical 'an invoice the company has received and owes' removing ambiguity. This clearly separates the tool from invoice creation for customers and from expense recording without needing to inspect the schema.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: recording supplier bills. The RECEIPTS section adds a concrete workflow instruction by telling the agent to search Gmail/Outlook for the supplier invoice before asking the user for a PDF. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the contextual cue is strong enough to guide selection.

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