Check a bill for increases

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral substance beyond them by disclosing the comparison baseline (median of the previous three bills) and the promotions-ending-soon detection. It stops short of explaining how company scoping or thresholds affect results, but the core detection semantics are disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the detection rule and finished with the actionable follow-up pointer. Nothing is repeated from the title and no sentence is waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the definition covers the detection rules and the follow-up path adequately for a two-parameter read-only check. The one real omission is that the threshold_pct parameter, central to what counts as an 'increase', is left undefined.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry both parameters, and it carries neither: 'company' is never mentioned and 'threshold_pct' (default 10) is never explained — the agent cannot tell whether it is a percent increase over median, a percent-of-median tolerance, or something else. 'Went up' and 'end soon' are the only quasi-parameter hints, and they are qualitative rather than semantic.

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 names a concrete verb and resource ('Find bills') plus the exact detection logic: increases versus the median of the previous three, and promotions ending soon. It also points to the downstream consumer (get_playbook), so the agent can separate it from bill_record (recording) and get_playbook (reading the playbook), though no sibling is named as an explicit alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Each finding suggests an issue id for get_playbook' hints at a check-then-follow-up workflow, but the description never says when this check is warranted versus other checks like scam_check, nor when not to run it. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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