ebill_list_bills

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results are from the archive, sorted newest first, and that the default includes all statuses. While it does not mention side effects or error conditions, 'list' makes the read-only nature evident, and the stated behavior adds useful 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 with no fluff. It communicates the core purpose, ordering, and status default efficiently.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: archive scope, ordering, and default status coverage. It could be more complete by mentioning what fields are returned, but that is not essential for basic selection.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description's 'Both open and settled unless you narrow it' reinforces the status parameter's semantics, but it adds little beyond what the schema already says about limit and status defaults.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List bills from the archive'), states the ordering ('newest first'), and clarifies the status default ('Both open and settled unless you narrow it'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ebill_open or ebill_get_bill by specifying it covers the full archive listing.

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 gives implicit usage guidance by stating the default behavior covers both open and settled bills, suggesting this is the general-purpose archive listing tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for basic selection.

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