list_bill_runs

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 lists optional parameters (include, query, pagination) but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or data volume. It implies a read operation but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the core action and HTTP method. The second sentence lists optional parameters efficiently. No fluff, but could be slightly more compact by integrating the parameters into the first sentence.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should hint at the return format. It does not specify what a bill run object contains or that results are paginated (though pagination parameters imply it). The description is partially complete but leaves gaps for an agent.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, e.g., listing query filter values (completed, pending, error). It does not provide new context to aid parameter selection.

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 explicitly states 'List bill runs', a specific verb+resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_bill_run (singular) by indicating a list operation. The HTTP method GET and path are also provided, reinforcing clarity.

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 optional parameters but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not differentiate from other list tools like list_invoices or list_customers, relying on the tool name alone.

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