autotask_search_billing_items

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default page size (25 results per page) and implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive. Additional behavioral details like rate limits or response format are missing.

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?

Two concise sentences: one establishing purpose and domain context, the other setting pagination expectations. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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 should hint at the returned data structure. It explains billing items conceptually and pagination, but omits response fields, ordering, or how results relate to filters. Adequate but incomplete for a search tool with many filters.

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 input schema already describes 11 of 12 parameters with high coverage (92%). The tool description adds only the default page size, which partially compensates for the undocumented 'page' parameter. No further semantic enrichment beyond the schema.

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 searches for billing items in Autotask and explains what billing items are (approved and posted billable items). This distinguishes it from other search tools among siblings, which target different entities.

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 other search tools (e.g., autotask_search_invoices, autotask_search_time_entries). It does not state prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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