ebill_get_bill

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields but says nothing about side effects, errors, authentication, or behavior when the ID is not found. Even for a read operation, this is minimal and lacks safety/error context.

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, front-loaded sentence of 18 words. It states the primary function immediately and includes no fluff or redundant information.

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 simple get-by-id tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it specifies the input and the key fields in the response. However, it omits details like not-found behavior, any required permissions, and how to access the associated document (likely via ebill_download_bill), so it is not fully comprehensive.

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 one parameter (bill_id) with no description (coverage 0%). The tool description clarifies that this ID identifies the bill to fetch, adding some meaning beyond the raw property name. However, it does not specify format, constraints, or any additional context about the ID.

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 it retrieves a single bill by ID, using an implicit 'get' verb and naming the resource ('bill'). It mentions the specific fields returned (biller, amount, due date, document presence), which distinguishes it from siblings like ebill_list_bills (multiple bills) and ebill_download_bill (document retrieval).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention ebill_list_bills for multiple bills or ebill_download_bill for documents, leaving usage purely implied by the phrase 'One bill by id'.

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