ebill_settings

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

The description explicitly states 'Side-effect free', which is a valuable behavioral promise given no annotations are provided. It also discloses the specific items reported (portal origin, CDP endpoint, profile path). It does not discuss permissions, error behavior, or response structure, but for a simple read-only tool, this is reasonable transparency.

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 unnecessary words. It states the action ('Report'), the object ('configuration in force'), and the key detail ('Side-effect free'). This is ideal for quick consumption by an agent.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists the three components of the configuration it reports, which conveys what the response will contain. The lack of explicit return format is a minor gap, but the tool is simple enough that this is adequate. A higher score would require mention of response structure or error conditions.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no need to explain them. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds value by listing the content of the report, which indirectly clarifies what the tool does with its (nonexistent) inputs.

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 the specific verb 'Report' and names the resource 'configuration in force', with concrete examples (portal origin, CDP endpoint, profile path). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ebill_status or ebill_list_bills, which deal with bill operations rather than configuration.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool name and description: it's for reporting configuration settings. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' or comparison to alternatives, nor any exclusions. The description does not mention sibling tools, so guidance is only inferred.

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