List infrastructure asset costs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: amounts are bare numbers without currency and require get_organization_settings for currency_code before reporting a figure. That output-semantics warning goes beyond anything in the annotations or schema.

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 sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the purpose before the filter list and the currency caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the ordering matches how an agent would reason about the call.

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?

Filters are covered by the schema, pagination defaults (auto-fetch all pages, max 1000) are explained in schema descriptions, and there is no output schema to describe. The currency handling note closes the main interpretive gap; only the absence of any sibling-disambiguation keeps it from 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the filter dimensions that the schema already documents (feature_id, work_order_id, category, cost_date_from/to) without adding formats, defaults, or edge-case behavior, so it does not materially extend parameter meaning.

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 a precisely scoped resource (cost rows for infrastructure features), which cleanly separates it from the near-sibling list_asset_costs and get_infrastructure_asset_cost. An agent knows exactly what it retrieves without opening the 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 enumerates the available filter dimensions (feature, work order, category, cost date range) and flags a cross-tool dependency on get_organization_settings, but never states when this tool is the right choice versus list_asset_costs or get_infrastructure_asset_cost. Usage is implied by the filters rather than explicitly guided.

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