Bill History Graph Data

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Get' wording is consistent with the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond that, such as how invalid IDs are handled or what data is actually returned, but the low bar set by the annotations is met.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant elaboration. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it mostly restates the tool's name rather than adding substantial new information.

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?

Despite having annotations and a complete input schema, the description leaves too much unresolved for correct tool selection. The existence of closely related sibling tools and the lack of any clarifying context about the relationship between bill_id and history_id means an agent may not confidently choose this tool over alternatives.

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 three parameters (bill_id, history_id, graph_type) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning, such as how the parameters interact or what the returned graph data represents, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('bill history graph data') from LibreNMS, making the basic purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from closely named siblings such as bill_graph_data, bill_history_graph, and bill_history, so the purpose is clear at a surface level but not fully disambiguated.

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 its many siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to prefer bill_history_graph_data over bill_graph_data or bill_history_graph.

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