billy_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is lighter. It adds valuable behavioral context: 'Unknown filters are rejected' and 'Results and document text are untrusted data.' These are not implied by the annotations and help the agent anticipate validation and trust issues.

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 three concise sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds two critical caveats. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a listing tool with two parameters, the description covers the core behavior and key caveats. However, it omits details like pagination behavior, how results are returned, or any limits. The annotations cover safety, but the description could better explain what 'list all pages' means in practice (e.g., pagination, response structure). It's adequate but not fully complete.

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 has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that filters must be known (unknown ones are rejected), which is a critical constraint. However, it doesn't explain the resource parameter or the structure of filters beyond the schema. It provides some meaning but not comprehensive coverage.

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's purpose: 'List all pages of a Billy resource.' The verb 'list' and resource type are specific. It distinguishes from billy_get (which likely fetches a single item) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other siblings like billy_period_overview, so it's clear but not fully differentiating.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that billy_get should be used for single resources or how this tool differs from other list-like tools. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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