create_bill

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, consistent with creation. However, the description does not discuss potential side effects, idempotency, or validation (e.g., duplicate bill numbers). With annotations present, the bar is lower, but some behavioral detail is missing.

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 three sentences: one defining purpose and two providing usage hints. No extraneous words, front-loaded, and 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?

The description covers purpose and prerequisite calls but does not mention the required line_items structure or that account_id and amount are required within line items. The schema covers this, but a brief mention would improve completeness for an 8-parameter tool.

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%, but the description adds value by telling the agent to use other tools to obtain vendor_id and account_id. This provides meaningful guidance beyond the schema.

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 action ('Create a new bill') and the resource ('accounts payable'), differentiating it from sibling tools like create_account, create_expense, etc. It explicitly specifies the bill type and provides context for prerequisites.

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 explicit guidance on using list_contacts and list_accounts to find required IDs, which helps the agent understand prerequisites. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool, but the context is clear from the sibling set.

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