list_ap_bills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'Fails loudly' hints at error behavior but is vague and does not specify read-only nature, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The description is insufficient for understanding tool behavior.

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 very short, but the inclusion of '[Not in LCS /v1]' is unnecessary for an AI agent and may be misleading. 'Fails loudly' is esoteric. Overall, it is terse but not effectively concise, as it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention pagination behavior or the meaning of the parameters. The tool lists AP bills but provides no context about sorting, filtering, or the scope of results. The phrase 'Fails loudly' adds only confusion. Given the simplicity of a list tool, additional context is expected.

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 2 parameters (page, page_size) with 0% descriptor coverage, meaning the schema provides no descriptions. The tool description does not mention or explain any parameters, so it adds no semantic value beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 states 'List AP bills' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. However, the prefix '[Not in LCS /v1]' introduces confusion and 'Fails loudly' is ambiguous but does not obscure the core purpose. It differentiates from siblings like get_ap_bill and list_ap_payments.

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 (e.g., list_invoices, list_expenses). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool should be avoided. The description offers no usage context.

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