clio_list_bills

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, pagination, filtering capabilities, or side effects. The agent gets minimal information beyond the basic operation.

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 but includes technical routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) that may not be actionable for the agent. It is adequately concise but could be streamlined to focus on tool usage.

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 lists bills and there are many sibling list tools, the description omits important context like what bills are included, filtering options, or output structure. The presence of an output schema is noted but its contents are not described.

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 one parameter 'arguments' with 0% coverage. The description does not explain what arguments are expected or how to format them. The agent cannot infer proper usage from the description 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?

The description clearly states it lists bills ('list_bills') and specifies the routing through an API endpoint. However, among many sibling clio_list_* tools, there is no differentiation, so the agent may not know when to choose this over other list tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains the routing mechanism, not the context or conditions for using the tool.

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