saas_alerts_billing_get_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by revealing that billing dates must be discovered via list_dates first, which is a useful workflow constraint. No contradictions with 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 two sentences: the first clearly states the action and scope, the second provides essential usage context. There is no redundancy or filler; every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description is adequate. It covers what it does and the prerequisite workflow. While it doesn't enumerate the return fields of 'billing details', the tool name and domain context make the purpose sufficiently clear, and no output schema exists to demand more detail.

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 100%, so the parameter format is already documented. The description adds meaning by implying that billing_date must be one of the available dates from list_dates, linking the parameter to the prerequisite discovery step and enriching beyond the schema's format-only description.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' with resource 'billing details' and a clear scope ('for a specific billing date'). It distinguishes from the sibling saas_alerts_billing_list_dates by positioning it as a prerequisite, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'Use saas_alerts_billing_list_dates first to discover available dates,' providing a concrete workflow and pointing to the relevant sibling tool. This is clear when-to-use guidance with no ambiguity.

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