list_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. It discloses pagination and filtering but does not mention rate limits, whether the operation is read-only (though implied), default behavior without parameters, or potential side effects. This is adequate but minimal.

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 at 34 words, effectively conveying the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the primary action and purpose. While brief, it does not waste words, though a bit more detail for a 10-parameter tool might be warranted.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers main filter types and pagination but omits details on sorting (ordering parameter), search behavior, and specific pagination parameters (page, page_size). It is partially complete but has gaps.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds only general categories (supplier, status, date range) without further nuance, which meets the baseline expectation but does not exceed it.

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 tool lists supplier bills/purchase invoices, distinguishing it from siblings like get_bill, create_bill, and other list tools. It specifies pagination and filtering capabilities, making the purpose 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 mentions filtering by supplier, status, or date range, giving context on when to use filters. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, such as when to use get_bill for a single bill instead.

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