parse_energy_bill

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral details such as required formats, error handling, or limitations. It only states the basic extraction function, leaving the agent unaware of potential failure modes.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, the list of extracted fields could be structured with bullet points for clarity, but it is not overly verbose.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic function. However, it lacks details on accuracy, limitations (e.g., only Italian bills), or error handling, which is needed for a parsing tool of complex documents.

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 single parameter 'bill_text' has schema coverage at 100%. The description adds helpful context: 'Puoi estrarre il testo da un PDF o riceverlo dall'utente', which clarifies how to obtain the input, exceeding the schema alone.

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 verb ('Analizza', 'estrae') and the resource ('bolletta italiana di luce o gas'). It lists the specific extracted fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'calculate_energy_savings' or 'get_available_offers'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like the input must be in Italian or from a specific source. The agent must infer from sibling names.

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