freeagent_list_bills

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds behavioral context by explaining that open_or_overdue views show unpaid bills, which is a useful nuance beyond the schema's enum.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and the usage tip is compact and actionable. No 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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations declaring safety, the description covers the essential usage. It could mention pagination or return format, but these are less critical for a simple list endpoint.

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 schema already describes all 6 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight extra meaning for the 'view' parameter, but overall the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'FreeAgent bills' and clarifies the domain meaning as 'money the company owes to suppliers (accounts payable)', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_invoices, create_bill, and delete_bill.

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 provides a clear usage directive: 'Use view='open_or_overdue' to see what is still to pay.' This gives a concrete use case, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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