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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the endpoint and paging behavior ('Paged: pass next_offset as offset'), but that paging advice largely restates the offset schema description. No auth, rate-limit, or return-shape detail beyond 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 clauses, front-loaded with the resource and followed by filters, paging, and endpoint. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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 paged read-only list with no output schema and full schema coverage, the essentials (filters, paging handoff, endpoint) are present. It stops short of describing the returned object shape, which is the only notable gap given there is no output schema.

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 five parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax or format detail (e.g., wildcard behavior of match) beyond restating the parent_id/description filters. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 centers/kostenplaatsen), and the read-only nature is unambiguous versus the sibling get_cost_center. An agent can distinguish this from the get/list/create siblings without opening any schema.

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 the listing can be filtered 'optionally by parent id or description', which implies the filter use case, but gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g., when to use get_cost_center instead, or when to filter client-side). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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