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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are ordered by creation date, every user has at least one default cost center, and that default cannot be deleted. This helps the agent reason about invariants when managing 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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and every clause adds value: the scope, the ordering, and the default-center invariant. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 parameterless read-only list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the list contains, how it is ordered, and an important domain rule about default cost centers. There are no missing inputs or prerequisites that would prevent 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to clarify. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameters and focuses on the output behavior. This matches the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 action ('Lista'), the resource ('centros de custo do usuário'), and adds specific context such as examples, ordering by creation, and the existence of a default cost center. This distinguishes it from related cost-center tools like create_cost_center, update_cost_center, and delete_cost_center.

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 usage is implied by the name and description: call this when you need the user's cost centers. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling list tools, nor any mention of when not to use it or how results might be used alongside create/update operations.

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