List bills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the Clio-specific semantic that a bill is the basis for an invoice, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination (page_token exists), the limit cap of 200, result ordering, or read-only/safe-to-call behavior.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and filters following. No padding or redundancy, though it is a bit cramped and the parenthetical interrupts the filter list.

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 10-parameter, zero-required, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers the filtering axes but leaves type, limit, query, pagination, and result shape unaddressed. Adequate to attempt a call, but not complete enough to call it confidently without opening the schema.

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 only 10% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate and it only partly does: it names state, client, matter, issue period, and overdue filtering, but omits type (revenue/trust), limit, query, and page_token. Worse, it lists five states while the schema enum includes a sixth, 'deleted', so the enumeration is incomplete and potentially misleading.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists bills') and names the filterable dimensions (state, client, matter, issue period, overdue). The parenthetical clarifying that a Clio bill is the basis for the actual invoice adds genuine domain meaning. It does not explicitly contrast with clio_bill_get or clio_outstanding_balances, but 'list' vs 'get' is inferable.

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 enumerates possible filters but never says when to choose this tool over siblings like clio_bill_get, clio_outstanding_balances, or clio_billable_matters_list. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no workflow context — the agent must infer usage entirely.

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