get_bill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get', which implies a read operation, but does not mention return format, error handling, or any other behavioral traits. The description adds no information beyond what the name suggests.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word contributes to clarity.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a get-by-ID operation. It does not explain return values, but the output schema likely covers that. The description could mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining the ID from list_bills), but this is not essential.

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 description says 'by ID', which clarifies that bill_id is the identifier of the bill. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description provides only minimal compensation for the parameter's meaning, lacking details on constraints or usage.

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 'Get a specific bill by ID', specifying the verb (get), resource (bill), and scope (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bills, create_bill, and update_bill.

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 implies usage when a specific bill ID is known, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list bills, create/update). The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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