Get bill

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

The description confirms a read operation and scopes it to one bill, which is consistent with the readOnlyHint=true annotation. It does not add much beyond the annotation, and it does not mention error behavior or what happens if the bill is not found. With annotations already covering the safe/read-only nature, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds necessary information: what the tool does and what it requires. This is an ideal size for a single-parameter read tool.

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 single-parameter read tool with a full output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the essential usage. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema exists. A minor gap is that it does not suggest the companion list_bills tool when the identifier is unknown, but the low complexity makes the definition sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already described as 'The bill's name or id.' The description essentially repeats this requirement ('Needs the bill name or id') without adding new semantic detail about format, ambiguity handling, or how to disambiguate duplicate names. The schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Reads'), a specific resource ('one bill'), and the level of detail ('in detail'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_bills (which lists bills) and from update_bill/mark_bill_paid (which mutate bills). An agent can select the right tool based on the singular, read-only intent.

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 gives a useful prerequisite ('Needs the bill name or id'), which implies the agent must already have an identifier. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer list_bills to obtain that identifier, nor does it state when not to use get_bill. The guidance is adequate but not explicit about alternatives.

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