clio_find_bills

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'List' clearly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is safe. However, the description does not mention pagination behavior, the default limit of 25, or that it returns a list of bills. The schema provides the limit details, but the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the obvious read nature.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('List bills') and immediately specifies the filtering criteria. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully complete. It covers the main filtering parameters but omits the limit parameter, does not describe the return format (a list of bills), and does not address edge cases like no filters being provided. The tool is simple, but missing these details leaves gaps for an agent relying solely on the description.

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 description explicitly names three filtering dimensions (matter, client, state) which map to the schema properties matter_id, client_id, and state, providing meaning beyond the bare property names. However, it omits the limit parameter entirely, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not explain how filters combine or the purpose of limit.

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 specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'bills', with the scope of filtering by matter, client, or state. This differentiates it from the sibling tool clio_get_bill, which retrieves a single bill. However, it does not explicitly mention that it can return multiple bills or that it is the 'find' counterpart to 'get'.

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 states what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention that clio_get_bill should be used for retrieving a single bill, nor does it specify conditions like 'use when you need to search by filters' vs. 'use in all cases for listing bills'. No exclusions or alternative clarifications are provided.

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