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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Read' signals a non-destructive operation, but it does not describe permissions, pagination, return behavior, or whether an empty search returns all cost centers.

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: it states the operation first, then the filter limitation. It is efficient, though the second sentence is vague and could be clearer.

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?

For a list tool with three optional parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the definition is too thin. It omits return shape, pagination, sort semantics, and the purpose of company_name, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it beyond a simple search.

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%, and the description mentions only the `search` filter. It leaves `sort` and `company_name` unexplained, and the statement that only `search` is supported is ambiguous against a schema that exposes a `company_name` parameter.

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 verb and resource: 'Read cost centers.' It is clear this is a listing/read operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools such as get_cost_center or get_cost_center_report.

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 says only that the API supports the verified `search` filter, which is a useful limitation but not guidance on when to use this tool versus get_cost_center or get_cost_center_report. There are no exclusions or alternative-routing instructions.

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