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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a fixed JSON GET endpoint and names required inputs, which implies a read operation, but it does not discuss side effects, permissions, error behavior, or other runtime traits.

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 short and front-loaded, with required inputs clearly called out. The phrasing is somewhat telegraphic and repeats 'query fields', but there is little wasted prose.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks details such as date format, what the report contains, and how company_name is interpreted, leaving some gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies company_name as required and specifies that dateFrom and dateTo are required query fields, but it does not explain date formats, the meaning of company_name, or the full query object structure; filter details are delegated to describe_nextesy_operation.

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 resource and method: a cost-center report retrieved via GET /api/v1/reports/cost-centers. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate the report from sibling tools such as get_cost_center or list_cost_centers.

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?

It gives practical preconditions: an explicit company is required, and query fields dateFrom/dateTo are required. It also points to describe_nextesy_operation for filters, but it does not state when to use this report versus sibling listing or single-record tools.

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