get_cospend_bill

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. But it adds value by specifying the VIEWER access requirement, which is a behavioral nuance not in annotations. It also explains the 'deleted' field and return format, which is beyond 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 structured with clear Args and Returns sections, but is somewhat verbose in listing all return fields. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter details are concise. The return field enumeration is necessary given no output schema, but could be more compact.

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 it's a simple read tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides full context: what it returns (and meaning of each field), required access, and parameter semantics. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must fully explain both parameters. It does: project_id as String project id, bill_id as Integer bill id. This is sufficient for the agent to use them correctly, though it lacks further detail like format or constraints, but for a read operation it's adequate.

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 it retrieves a single Cospend bill by ID, distinguishing it from list_cospend_bills and other bill operations like delete_cospend_bill. It even notes the required VIEWER access, adding precision.

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?

It clearly indicates when to use: to fetch a single bill by IDs. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling context makes it obvious that for listing many bills, one would use list_cospend_bills. The note about VIEWER access is useful.

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