List cost items

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations by disclosing a non-obvious filtering quirk — subcontractor and other items are pulled out of each page, so a page can hold fewer than limit — and the loop-termination rule (keep going until next_cursor is null). That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to page correctly and not mistake a short page for the end of results.

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?

Front-loads the resource and its fields, then moves to usage, filtering, and pagination in a logical order. The opening clause ('to price estimate and change order lines') is slightly garbled and the field list is dense, but no sentence is wasted.

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 read-only, 4-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how to filter, how to paginate, and where the values are consumed downstream. Only a fuller description of the returned page envelope (beyond next_cursor) is missing, which is minor.

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?

With 50% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining the two undocumented-but-important parameters: the type filter's purpose and that search matches the item name. It also clarifies the relationship between limit and short pages. It doesn't restate the default/limit bounds, but those are already in the schema.

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+resource (list saved cost items) and enumerates the record's fields (name, type, unit, unit cost, markup, cost code, SKU, notes), so the agent knows exactly what is being returned. It ties the tool to downstream use (pricing estimate/change-order lines) rather than differentiating it from the many other list_* siblings, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Gives explicit context for when to reach for it: to source line items for create_estimate, add_estimate_items, or create_change_order. It also explains how to narrow results (filter by type or name search) and how to page through them. No when-not-to-use guidance is offered, but the intended workflow is unambiguous.

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