List Standard Cost Codes

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable context: pagination behavior ('page and per_page control pagination and the response reports how many pages remain'), the return format ('JSON array'), and failure semantics ('error payload carrying the HTTP status — commonly 401 when the token has expired, 403 without tool permission, and 404 when an id does not resolve'). This is rich behavioral disclosure and does not contradict annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose and use case, followed by return/pagination info, read-only behavior, error handling, required params, and API endpoint. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler. It is longer than two sentences but each clause adds distinct value.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description provides complete guidance: return type ('JSON array'), pagination details, error behaviors (auth, permissions, not found), required parameters, and the API endpoint. It covers all essential aspects for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions—it merely repeats 'page and per_page control pagination' and lists required parameters. It does not elaborate on the 'view' enum or filter semantics, but the schema already covers those adequately.

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: 'Return a list of all Standard Cost Codes in a specified Standard Cost Code list.' It also specifies the use case ('discover standard cost codes or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it'), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_standard_cost_code_lists and show_standard_cost_code.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use this to discover standard cost codes or to look up the id of one before calling a tool that needs it.' It also lists required parameters. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the stated use case provides sufficient context for selection.

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