list_fees

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It states it is a list operation (read-only) but omits details on pagination behavior (limit/offset defaults), ordering, or any constraints on the returned data. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. No unnecessary words, but extremely brief; additional context could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. However, for a list tool with three parameters (two undocumented), the description should cover pagination semantics and any constraints. It does not, making it incomplete for reliable tool invocation.

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 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds meaning only for matter_id ('Filter by matter_id for matter-specific fees'), but fails to explain the limit and offset parameters (e.g., maximum values, default behavior). This is insufficient to compensate for the schema gap.

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 the tool lists fee entries, specifies they represent billable time, and mentions filtering by matter_id. This provides a specific verb-resource combination and differentiates from sibling fee-related tools like create_fee or patch_fee.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving fees, optionally filtered by matter_id. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools or fee-related actions, nor does it mention prerequisites or limits.

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