mf_list_billings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '取得します' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, pagination, rate limits, return format, or side effects, leaving the agent with very little behavioral context.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is stated first and the filtering capability second, making it efficient.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits important context such as pagination behavior, the fact that q overrides other filters (noted only in the schema), the default range key, and the read-only nature of the operation. An agent would need to rely almost entirely on the schema and name to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so all 11 parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds only a generic note that filtering by partner or period is possible, which does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: '請求書一覧を取得します' (retrieve billing list). It distinguishes this list operation from the singular sibling mf_get_billing and from create/update/delete tools by naming the resource and the list form. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or differentiate itself from other list tools such as mf_list_quotes.

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 only notes that filtering by partner or period is possible ('取引先や期間で絞り込み可能です'). It gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like mf_get_billing (single record) or mf_create_billing, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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