get_cost_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses currency (USD), client-side conversion from cents, breakdown dimensions, and cost types excluded. It does not mention that the operation is read-only or address potential rate limits, but the provided behavioral context is valuable.

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 100 words, front-loaded with the main function, and each sentence adds value. 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?

Output schema exists, so return values are handled. The description covers key aspects: currency, breakdown, exclusion. Missing is explicit pagination guidance for 'limit' and 'page', which are common parameters requiring explanation for proper use. Overall adequate but with one gap.

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 only 40%, but the description adds no parameter-specific details. It references 'group_by' implicitly via 'optionally by workspace', but does not explain 'limit', 'page', or 'ending_at' semantics. The agent must rely on the sparse schema descriptions, which are insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'Get dollar-amount cost data for the organization' with specific breakdown by operation description and optional workspace. It provides concrete example questions ('what did we spend last week') and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on cost vs. usage.

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?

Explicit usage examples are given, and it clarifies that Priority Tier costs are excluded and should be tracked via 'usage' tool. However, it does not name an alternative tool for that case, leaving the agent to infer from sibling context.

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