dosare_billing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the matching logic (by tenant's CUI/CNP), conditional content (compensation balance only if investment clause), and the nature of returned data (states, days overdue, totals). It doesn't explicitly state read-only status, but the content strongly implies a query operation, and no side effects are mentioned. This is adequate for a read-like tool.

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 detailed but well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then listing specific data components. It's three sentences that provide substantial value without fluff. It could be slightly more concise, but the complexity of what it returns justifies the length.

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 no output schema, the description explains what data will be returned in terms of content (states, totals, compensation balance) and answers specific questions. It doesn't describe the exact response format or error handling, but for a query tool with this clarity, it's reasonably complete. The investment clause condition adds useful 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 both parameters (id and companyId) are already well-documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters—it doesn't explain how id is used or the purpose of companyId beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 explicitly states the tool returns all invoicing data between landlord and tenant for a rental dosar, listing specific components (recurring invoice, invoices with states and days overdue, totals per currency, received invoices, compensation balance). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dosare_get (general dosar info) and dosare_stats (statistics), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage: it's for billing questions about a specific rental dosar. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the detailed scope makes it clear when to use this tool over others. An agent can infer it's the right choice when needing invoice/payment status for a dosar, though explicit routing guidance is absent.

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