billy_journal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the 200-proposal limit and the explicit caution about unknown outcomes requiring reconciliation, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence adds a critical behavioral note without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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 no parameters and rich annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns (last 200 proposals), and warns about ambiguous outcomes. It lacks a return format, but with no output schema, that is not critical. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides full coverage by default. The description does not need to explain any parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds nothing extra needed for parameter understanding.

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 (Read) and a specific resource (the last 200 proposals), including the nuance that it covers rejected/uncertain writes. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like billy_list or billy_get, which are likely for current or individual records.

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 when to use this tool (to read the journal of proposals) but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. The reconciliation caution provides a conditional follow-up, but there is no direct guidance on choosing this over siblings.

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