bills_list

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'list with optional filters', such as whether the list is paginated, sorted, or includes all bills. This is adequate but not enhanced.

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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and concise, effectively communicating the tool's function without extraneous detail.

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 (not shown), return values are likely documented. The description and schema together cover purpose and parameters. However, it lacks explicit distinction from bill_history (which lists historical bills) and does not mention pagination or ordering. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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%, meaning each parameter (period, ref, custid) is already fully described in the schema. The description's mention of 'optional filters' adds no additional meaning. Per guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high and the description does not enrich beyond schema.

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 the verb 'List', the resource 'bills', and the source 'LibreNMS'. It mentions optional filters, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bill_get (single bill) and bill_create_or_update (modify). The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 list of bills with optional filters is needed, but it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like bill_history or bill_get. There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions.

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