sherweb_billing_payable_charges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination (via parameters) and result contents, but does not describe rate limits, required authentication, or what happens when no charges exist for a period. For a primarily read-only list operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, zero filler. The first sentence states the main action and return contents; the second covers filters. Every word earns its place, and key information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema. The description covers the purpose, return contents, and filtering options. However, it doesn't clarify the relationship to sibling 'sherweb_billing_charge_details' or describe response behavior when filters yield no results, which is somewhat incomplete for a billing API 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all 5 parameters fully. The description adds the date-range and billing-cycle filtering concepts, reinforcing what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds minimal new semantic value beyond restating filter options.

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 'Get payable charges for a billing period' with a specific verb+resource. It enumerates what's returned (products, pricing, deductions, fees, taxes). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling 'sherweb_billing_charge_details', though the name and content imply a list-vs-detail relationship.

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 specifies two filter dimensions (billing cycle type and date range), giving clear context on how to narrow results. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like charge_details, but the date-range and cycle-type filtering guidance is useful. Missing explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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