get_cost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' which suggests a read-only operation, but it doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, what happens if the ID is invalid (e.g., error handling), or any rate limits. The description is minimal and misses key behavioral traits needed for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise with just four words, front-loaded to convey the core action and resource. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient for quick understanding, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.

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 complexity (a read operation with 1 parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, error cases, return format, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that retrieves data by ID, more context is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID' which adds some meaning for the 'cost_id' parameter, but it doesn't specify the ID format (e.g., numeric, string), source, or constraints. This is insufficient to fully document the parameter beyond the basic 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?

The description 'Get specific cost by ID' clearly states the action (get) and resource (cost), but it's vague about what 'cost' entails (e.g., expense record, pricing data) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_costs' (plural). It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity to distinguish it from related operations.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain if this is for retrieving a single cost record by its unique identifier, as opposed to using 'get_costs' for a list or 'search' for broader queries. The description implies usage by mentioning 'by ID' but offers no explicit context or exclusions.

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