hamravesh_billing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state idempotency, authentication needs, or potential side effects. The description is too brief to assure safe usage.

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 that concisely conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the key information. However, it lacks structured formatting like bullet points or sections, which would improve readability.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and many siblings, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the parameter, return format, or usage context. A more complete description would include examples or clarify the parameter's role.

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% (the parameter 'org' has no description), and the description does not mention or clarify the parameter at all. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation, leaving the parameter's purpose and constraints entirely undefined.

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 'وضعیت مالی سازمان: کیفپولها، بودجه و بدهی' clearly indicates that the tool retrieves financial status including wallets, budget, and debt. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on apps, keys, etc. However, it lacks a verb like 'get' or 'list' to explicitly state the action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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