get_billing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, and lists return types, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. This is a moderate gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first and filtering details added concisely. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying scope and capabilities, though it could be slightly more structured for optimal readability.

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's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and return data but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details like authentication or limits, and output specifics. This leaves gaps for an agent to operate effectively without additional context.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by date range, event type, or tags, which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what's in the structured fields.

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 with specific verbs ('Get billing and usage events') and resources ('for your account'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on billing data rather than media processing, detection, or job management. It specifies what data is returned (credit consumption, API call history, Stripe portal link), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions filtering capabilities but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference any sibling tools for related tasks. Without such context, an agent might struggle to determine the appropriate use case.

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