get_bill

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying that it returns full bill details including line items and vendor info, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions or negative behaviors are mentioned, but the description is sufficient for a read operation.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose, and the second adds relevant detail about the return content. No extraneous information is present.

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 simplicity of the tool (a basic get by ID), the description together with the annotations and input schema provides complete information. The description compensates for the lack of an output schema by specifying that it returns line items and vendor info.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (organization_id and bill_id). The tool description does not add additional explanation about parameter usage beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('get detailed information') and the resource ('a specific bill'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with other entities (e.g., get_account, get_expense). It also specifies the return content ('full bill details including line items and vendor info').

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 implies that this tool is for retrieving a single bill's details, which is evident from the name and context, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_bills or get_bill_attachment. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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