Cost Center Analysis

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by stating the limited return type and that it does not provide full cost data, which helps set expectations beyond the annotations.

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 two concise sentences, with the key limitation '[LIMITED]' front-loaded. It avoids redundancy and every sentence adds information, making it highly efficient.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately indicates the output type ('cost center list only') and limitations. It also points to a richer alternative, covering the essential context without extraneous detail.

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 covers all 7 parameters with complete descriptions (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat parameter details. It adds no extra semantic value, but the schema is sufficient, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 function: 'Analyze costs by cost center/department' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself by noting it 'Returns cost center list only' and directing to a sibling tool for actual data, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly provides usage guidance: the '[LIMITED]' marker warns of constraints, and the instruction to 'use fortnox_account_activity with cost center filtering on vouchers' for actual cost center data gives a clear alternative. This satisfies when-to-use and when-not-to-use requirements.

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