list_line_items

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a capability ('can resolve') without describing what the tool actually does, whether it's read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. This is essentially no behavioral disclosure.

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 extremely short but under-specified. It's a vague fragment rather than a concise, informative statement. It doesn't earn its place because it fails to communicate the tool's function effectively.

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 no parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete because it doesn't clearly state what the line items are, how they are sourced, or how to interpret the result. A simple list tool still needs a clear purpose statement.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage. Per the rubric, 0 params warrants a baseline of 4; the description doesn't need to add parameter details.

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 is a noun phrase, not a clear verb+resource. It essentially restates the tool name with the qualifier 'this server can resolve,' which doesn't clearly state the action of listing or returning line items. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like get_financials.

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. There is no context, prerequisites, or examples. The intended usage is only implied by the name and vague description, but no explicit direction is given.

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