export_cost_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It adds useful context: file saves to ~/.finops/exports/, no Claude Desktop needed, and open_file behavior. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, file size limits, or that it is a read-only operation (non-destructive). The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 well-structured with a concise intro, a brief Args section, and three clear examples. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, all parameters with defaults, and provides examples. It states the output location and behavior. It lacks discussion of return values (though no output schema exists) and does not clarify when to use this vs. the sibling export_cost_report_csv. Overall, it is reasonably complete for the context.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by listing all 6 parameters with defaults, allowed values (e.g., sections: cost_summary, services, etc.; formats: html, csv), and examples. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though enum values could be more explicitly enumerated.

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 'Export' and the resource 'cost report', and specifies it exports as HTML and/or CSV. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning both formats, whereas export_cost_report_csv likely only does CSV. The examples further clarify the purpose.

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 clear context with defaults and examples like 'Export a cost report for this month', but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives such as export_cost_report_csv or export_board_summary. The examples imply usage scenarios, but explicit when-not guidance is absent.

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