Show Standard Cost Code List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a 'JSON object' and the API endpoint, which aligns with annotations but does not provide further behavioral traits beyond what's already inferred.

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 four sentences with clear structure: purpose, usage, return format, required params, and API reference. Front-loaded and mostly efficient, though slightly redundant ('Return detailed information' and 'Returns a JSON object').

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 tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, required parameters, return type (JSON), and API category. Missing clarity on pagination (page, per_page) and response structure, but overall adequate.

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% (all parameters described). The description mentions required parameters (id, company_id) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('return', 'fetch') and resource ('Standard Cost Code List', 'Work Breakdown Structure records') at the Company level. It distinguishes from list tools but not from show_standard_cost_code, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 says 'Use this to fetch the full details... by its identifier' and lists required parameters, providing implicit usage context. However, it does not give explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, missing an opportunity to guide the agent.

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