List attachments

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

Beyond the readOnly annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: no server-side filtering, pagination structure, compact vs. full field set, and that monetary values are integer cents. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and prepares the agent for response handling.

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 organized into short paragraphs with clear topics (listing, filtering, download alternative, fields, return format, paging, monetary values). Each sentence carries information, but the contradictory 'optional filters' vs 'no filters' is an unnecessary redundancy that wastes a small amount of space.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying the exact return shape ({ total, count, page, pages, has_more, next_page, items[] }) and how to use it. It also covers param nuances, paging, currency, and links to sibling tools, making it complete for a 4-parameter listing tool.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: explains the tradeoff of selecting fields ('Fewer fields = less context used'), clarifies the 'fields' array usage with ['all'], and emphasizes using 'next_page' for continuation. This adds value, though the schema already defines parameter basics.

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 lists attachments from easybill and differentiates from download_attachment. However, the opening sentence mentions 'optional filters' while the second paragraph says 'This endpoint has no filters', creating internal contradiction that slightly muddles the purpose.

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?

Explicitly states the use case ('page through the list and match on document_id, customer_id or file_name') and names the alternative tool for fetching file content (easybill_download_attachment). Also gives pagination guidance via 'next_page' and field selection advice, leaving no ambiguity about when to use this tool.

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