get_bill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that this is a read operation returning a single bill with participants and payment statuses, but it omits any detail about error handling, authentication, or exact response shape. This is adequate for a simple get-by-ID, 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 a single sentence with no filler: it names the action, the resource, the key identifier, and the returned content. It is well front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

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 and no annotations, the description gives only a high-level view of the return value ('participants and payment statuses') and does not explain the optional lang parameter. For a simple read operation, this is minimally sufficient, but an agent would still need to guess at response structure and language semantics.

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 0%, and the description only clarifies that the tool retrieves a bill by ID, which maps to billId. The 'lang' parameter is entirely unaddressed in both the schema and the description, leaving its purpose and expected values ambiguous. The description does not adequately compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'one SplitBill bill by ID' and indicates what is included: participants and payment statuses. It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_bills, create_bill, and update_payment, so an agent can identify the correct tool without ambiguity.

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 usage context is implied by 'Get one SplitBill bill by ID' — an agent can infer this is for retrieving a single bill when the billId is known. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like list_bills or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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