Create Bill

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

Annotations are all neutral (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only says 'Record' without revealing what happens after creation: whether journal entries are created, whether balances are updated, whether the bill is reversible, or whether any authorization is required. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 a single 11-word sentence with no filler, and the key action and object are front-loaded. It is efficient and easy to parse. However, it does not provide any structured elaboration on context or behavior, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema and neutral annotations, so the description must provide sufficient operational context. It does not explain what the tool returns, what prerequisites exist (e.g., contact must already exist, dates must be valid), or downstream accounting effects (e.g., balance sheet impact). An agent cannot fully anticipate the consequences of invoking it correctly.

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%: every parameter (contact_id, bill_date, due_date, items, notes, bill_number) has a description in the schema. The tool description adds only the semantic context that the bill is a supplier liability, which is not parameter-specific. At high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not add further value.

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 states a specific action ('Record') and resource ('supplier bill/invoice'), and clarifies that it represents an accounts-payable obligation ('that the company owes'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_bills (reading bills) and pay_bill (settling bills), and from generic create_transaction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions (e.g., 'use for supplier bills only, not customer invoices'). The intended usage must be inferred from the tool name and schema, with no explicit routing among siblings like create_transaction or create_estimate.

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