xero_list_draft_bills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing draft bills but doesn't describe key behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, pagination, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with the tool effectively.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and usage context without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety, authentication, or response format, which are crucial for a listing tool. While the purpose and usage are clear, the overall context needed for an agent to use the tool correctly is insufficient.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter 'reference' documented as a filter pattern. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints on the reference pattern. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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') and resource ('draft bills (ACCPAY invoices)'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'xero_list_expense_claims' or 'xero_list_receipts' beyond mentioning 'draft bills' and the ACCPAY invoice type.

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 clear context on when to use this tool ('to find existing draft to add expenses to'), which is helpful for guiding usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the siblings, such as 'xero_get_bill' for retrieving a specific bill.

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