Get bill

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful disclosure of what the response contains (line items with description, cost type, quantity, unit, unit cost, total, cost code) — genuine value beyond annotations, though permission or rate-limit behavior isn't mentioned.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and immediately followed by the concrete returned fields. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the line-item fields and header fields. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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% and the single parameter already says 'bill_id from list_bills'. The description repeats the same provenance without adding format, range, or failure semantics, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reads one Contractor Foreman bill by bill_id') and explicitly positions it relative to the list tool: 'what list_bills gives plus the payment terms and every line item'. An agent can tell it apart from list_bills and other get_* siblings without opening a schema.

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 reference to list_bills ('bill_id from list_bills', 'what list_bills gives plus...') makes the list-then-detail workflow clear. It never states an explicit exclusion or when-not-to-use case, so it stops short of a 5.

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