myob_bill_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that supplying layout switches to a layout-specific detail endpoint, which is useful. However, it does not disclose the return format, authentication needs, or error behavior, leaving the agent to infer these.

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 only two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds a crucial conditional. It is front-loaded, succinct, and free of unnecessary 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?

For a simple get tool, the description is adequate but sparse. It lacks any mention of the return value or business_id role, and without an output schema, the agent has no expectation of the response shape. The layout detail adds valuable context, but gaps remain.

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%, so the description must clarify parameter meanings. It explains uid (the key) and layout (triggers an alternate endpoint), but business_id is entirely unaddressed. This partial compensation is helpful but incomplete.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('bill by UID'), which is specific and distinguishes it from list/mutation siblings. The additional note about layout-specific endpoints further defines the tool's scope.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: retrieve a specific bill. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other get tools (e.g., myob_entity_get, myob_raw_get) or how the layout parameter should be chosen. The conditional about layout is a usage hint but lacks a recommendation.

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