billy_raw_request

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

Goes beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true) by detailing the real accounting effects, the need for BILLY_WRITE_MODE for non-GET methods, and the silent ignoring of undocumented query params—critical behavioral context not captured in annotations.

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 relatively long but well-structured with clear warnings and examples. It front-loads the main purpose and uses concise language. Minor opportunity to trim redundant cautions, but overall effective.

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 raw request tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: how to construct requests, handling of body, query, path, method, and response truncation. It also warns about silent failures and write mode constraints, making it fully self-contained.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant clarity: explains the singular resource key wrapping for body, the path format, query parameter usage, method enum defaults, and the maxChars truncation behavior. This adds value beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as an 'escape hatch' for Billy API v2 endpoints not covered by dedicated tools, providing specific examples (GET /currencies, /countries, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are all dedicated endpoints.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (uncovered endpoints), when not to (prefer dedicated tools), and provides critical usage constraints: write mode requirements, silent ignoring of query params, and real accounting effects of POST/PUT/DELETE.

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