get_cost_categories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is helpful but not explicitly stated. The description does not disclose potential errors, authentication requirements, or whether all categories are returned. It is adequate for a simple getter but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the action, the second provides actionable guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description explains its purpose and how to use the result. It does not describe the return format in detail, but the mention of 'returned GL codes' gives enough for the agent to understand the output. A brief note on the return structure would push it to a 5.

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 coverage is 100%: the single parameter administrationId is fully described in the schema with type and default. The description adds no additional parameter information, so it meets the baseline 3 without exceeding it.

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 tool lists cost categories (GL cost accounts) for document uploads, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_gl_accounts by scoping to document uploads, and explicitly links to upload_document.

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 provides explicit context: 'Use the returned GL codes as the costCategory parameter in upload_document.' This tells the agent when and how to use the tool. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternatives, such as using get_gl_accounts for non-upload scenarios, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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