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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain behavior beyond the schema: amounts carry no currency, and the agent must call get_organization_settings for currency_code before reporting a figure. It does not describe pagination behavior, but the schema covers that.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose, filters, then the currency caveat. Front-loaded, no filler, and every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 carries the return-value burden and does flag the critical amount-without-currency quirk plus the required follow-up call. Pagination is left entirely to the schema, which handles it adequately, so little is missing.

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 all seven parameters are already documented, including the enum on category and date formats. The description's filter list repeats the schema rather than adding syntax or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (cost rows) scoped to infrastructure features, which separates it from list_asset_costs and get_infrastructure_asset_cost. It does not name those siblings, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 sentence 'Filter by feature, work order, category, or cost date range' sketches when the tool is useful, but it maps to parameters rather than giving when-to-use vs when-not guidance or naming alternatives. Usage is implied, not stated.

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