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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the internal-ID lookup mode and batch behavior, but does not explain pagination, parameter interactions, or what 'internal' means relative to external IDs.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core operation and batch capability are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 and 11 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves substantial gaps around filtering, pagination, field selection, and return shape. It covers the basic list/by-ID modes but is not complete enough for reliable invocation in complex cases.

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 only clarifies the 'id' and 'ids' parameters. The other nine parameters, including page, order, expand, fields, filter, params, account, page_size, and sql_filter, remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 a specific verb and resource: listing accounting cost centers and/or querying one by internal ID. This differentiates it from the many sibling tools that target other Protheus resources.

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 directly conveys when the tool is appropriate: to list cost centers or fetch one by internal ID, with bulk execution support. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the resource-specific scope makes the intended usage clear.

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