lpza_list_unbilled

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'List' implicitly indicates a read-only operation, and the mention of the endpoint adds some technical context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating, describe output format, or mention any potential side effects or prerequisites, leaving some transparency gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It avoids unnecessary fluff and earns its place by clearly defining what the tool does.

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 tool's low complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient but lacks some details that would help an agent: it does not describe the return structure, whether results are paginated, or how the 'lookup' parameter affects output beyond what the schema states. Without annotations or an output schema, a bit more context would be beneficial.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of the two parameters ('lookup' and 'matter_id'), so the description does not need to add much. The description's mention of 'for a matter' aligns with the matter_id parameter but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema documents. 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 the action (List), the resource (unbilled draft fees and disbursements), and the context (for a matter). It also mentions the underlying endpoint (matterdraftlineitem.childlist), making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling tools like create/update/delete operations.

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 (to list unbilled WIP items for a matter) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no references to sibling lookup tools or exclusions, so usage is only implied, not directly guided.

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