bill_history_graph_data

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds only the source system (LibreNMS) and the fact that it retrieves graph data, which is already implied by the name. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., data freshness, pagination, or limitations) are disclosed.

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 concise, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It could be slightly improved by front-loading the source system, but overall it is 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 the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks context about how the data is organized or any dependencies on other tools. It is minimally adequate for a simple data retrieval tool but not thorough.

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?

Input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (bill_id, history_id, graph_type). The description does not add any semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline of 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 clearly states 'Get bill history graph data from LibreNMS,' specifying the action (Get) and resource (bill history graph data). It distinguishes from close siblings like 'bill_graph_data' (likely current data) and 'bill_history_graph' (possibly returns graph image), but does not explicitly differentiate the output format.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bill_graph_data' or 'bill_history_graph'. It also lacks contextual cues about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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