list_bills

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

With no annotations, the verb 'List' and the scope 'my' signal a read-only, user-scoped operation, which is valuable behavioral context. It does not disclose defaults, auth requirements, or response characteristics, but nothing contradicts the read-only implication.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the operation before listing filters, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's function and communicates the key information efficiently.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not describe the returned bill fields, sorting behavior, default filter values, or what 'my' precisely includes (creator, payer, debtor). The filter vocabulary helps, but an agent lacks enough operational detail to fully predict the call's behavior.

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?

Despite 0% schema-description coverage, the description maps most parameters to semantic concepts: payment status (status), my role (role), title search (search), date range (date_from/date_to), and pagination (page/limit). This adds meaning beyond raw parameter names, though 'lang' remains unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List my SplitBill bills') and enumerates filter dimensions, making the operation unambiguous. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_bill (single bill) and create_bill (creation).

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 establishes the core use case—listing the current user's bills—so an agent can infer when to call it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving some routing to inference.

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