List Cost Thresholds

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful semantic context by defining thresholds as monthly spend caps and clarifying the three possible scopes, but it does not describe return shape, pagination, or other behavioral details beyond what the annotations cover.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence fragment with no wasted words. It communicates the resource and scope immediately.

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 list-style tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description supplies enough context to understand that it concerns monthly spend caps at organisation, team, or user scope. It does not mention that results are returned as a list or describe pagination, but no output schema exists and the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 schema already documents teamId, userId, and usageType in detail, including the omission rule for organisation-level thresholds and the VOICE meaning. The description reinforces the scope model but does not add parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the specific resource (cost thresholds), explains that they are monthly spend caps, and names the three possible scopes: organisation, team, or user. It is clear what the tool is about, but the explicit listing action comes from the tool name rather than the description, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling get/set/remove cost threshold tools.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as telgea_get_user_cost_threshold or telgea_set_cost_threshold. The usage is only implicitly suggested by the resource name and scope, leaving the agent to infer the correct selection context.

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