List bills

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful non-annotation behavior: results are newest first, specific status values (Open, Paid), and the exact fields returned. It omits pagination behavior, but the schema covers cursor semantics.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and key fields, and the second sentence efficiently adds ordering, filtering, and sibling guidance. The first sentence partially repeats the field list in the second, which is mild redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately specifies the returned fields, statuses, and ordering. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema covers parameters, so the definition is largely complete despite not explaining pagination or result size.

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 75%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces filtering by project or search but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, and it does not explain limit or clarify cursor usage.

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 the Contractor Foreman Bills list') and enumerates the returned fields, ordering, and status values. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the get_bill sibling by noting that get_bill adds line items.

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?

Gives clear usage context: filter by project or search, and use get_bill when line items are needed. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name other list alternatives, but the sibling differentiation is strong.

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