get_costs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action 'retrieve'. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results (implied by limit/offset but not stated), or what the output format is. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for an agent.

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 three words, front-loaded as 'Retrieve project costs'. There is zero wasted text, making it efficient, though this conciseness contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.

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 2 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or differentiation from alternatives, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without guesswork.

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 2 parameters (limit, offset) with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'limit' and 'offset' control (e.g., pagination), their units, or default values. Since schema coverage is low and the description doesn't compensate, this falls below the baseline.

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 'Retrieve project costs' clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'project costs', which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't specify what 'costs' include (e.g., budget, actual, forecast) or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_cost' (singular) or 'get_revenue', leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention if this is for listing all project costs, filtered views, or how it differs from 'get_cost' (singular) or other financial tools like 'get_revenue'. Without any context or exclusions, usage is unclear.

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