project_cost_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Requires Enterprise license' as a behavioral constraint and describes the return value. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 relatively concise, front-loading the purpose and return details. It could be slightly tighter by merging the first two sentences, but overall it is efficient and well-structured with a clear separation of purpose, returns, args, and requirements.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers purpose, return values, parameter meaning, and a key prerequisite (Enterprise license). It does not mention data freshness or aggregation details, but for a summary tool this is sufficient.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds important context for the single parameter 'project_id' by specifying it is 'the project ID returned by ``create_project``'. This clarifies the origin and expected format beyond the schema's simple type definition.

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 'Get cost breakdown for a project' with specific return details (total costs, per-category breakdown, budget utilization). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'estimate_cost' which focus on estimation rather than retrieving actual summarized data.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only prerequisite mentioned is 'Requires Enterprise license', but there is no discussion of use cases, when not to use, or comparison to sibling tools like 'log_project_cost' or 'estimate_cost'.

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