autotask_search_billing_items

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

The description mentions a default page size of 25 results, which adds useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose other traits like rate limits or query performance. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose. The first sentence defines the tool and the second provides a detail about results per page. No extraneous text.

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 12 parameters (all with schema descriptions) and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what billing items are and gives default pagination, which is sufficient for a search tool with well-documented parameters.

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 100%, with each parameter having a clear description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool searches for billing items in Autotask, explicitly defining billing items as 'approved and posted billable items from the Approve and Post workflow', which distinguishes it from other search tools like search_invoices or search_tickets.

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 provides basic context for when to use the tool (searching billing items) but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings. As a search tool, it's implied to be used when filtering by various IDs, but there's no explicit guidance.

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