nessie_list_bills

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a meaningful limitation beyond that: Nessie account data provides no credit limit, so credit utilization cannot be calculated. No contradiction exists.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in a single scoped sentence, and the credit-limit caveat provides useful context. The standalone 'Read-only' sentence is redundant with the annotations, creating minor waste but not enough to lower the score further.

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 one-parameter, read-only list tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description provides sufficient information to call it correctly. It lacks output-shape and alternative-selection details, but those are not critical at this level of complexity.

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?

The input schema already documents accountId at 100% coverage as a required opaque string with a format warning. The description only reinforces that the ID belongs to a Nessie account, adding no operational detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is warranted.

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 opens with a specific verb and object, 'List bills and recurring obligations,' and scopes the action to a single Nessie account. This differentiates it from sibling list tools by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus list_deposits, list_withdrawals, list_loans, or other siblings. The credit-limit caveat is a data limitation, not a usage directive, so the agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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