client_cost_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'Requires Enterprise license' constraint but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only (implied by 'Get') or describe any side effects. The description adds some useful context but misses opportunities to fully disclose behavior beyond the license requirement.

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 concise: three sentences that first state the purpose, then add detail about aggregation and use case, and finally describe the parameter and license requirement. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description adequately explains the input but does not describe the output format or content of the cost report. Given the lack of additional structured data, the description should provide more detail about what the report contains to be complete.

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 one required parameter ('client') with no description. The description adds meaning by noting it can be a 'Client or cost-center identifier,' which provides an alternative interpretation. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds significant value, though it could be more detailed (e.g., format or usage examples).

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 tool's purpose: 'Get a cost report for all projects belonging to a client.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('cost report'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on client-level aggregation, which is unique among the many cost-related 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 context on when to use the tool: 'useful for invoicing and chargeback.' While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, the context is clear and helps the agent infer appropriate scenarios.

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