cor_list_ratecards

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavior. 'List' implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or that it might require specific permissions. No information about pagination limits, rate limits, or response staleness is given.

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 very short, but the 'Args' block is redundant with the input schema. It could be condensed into a single line without losing information. Being brief is not the same as concise; it lacks a clear structure like separating purpose from usage.

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 (list with pagination) and the presence of an output schema, the description might suffice for basic understanding. However, it omits context like the ordering of results, whether ratecards are only from the user's organization, or relation to other tools. Incomplete for a realistic use case.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but merely restates the parameter names and defaults already present in the input schema. It adds no additional meaning, such as allowed formats for 'page' and 'per_page', or any constraints beyond defaults.

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 states 'List ratecards' which conveys the basic purpose. However, it does not specify what a ratecard is or the scope (e.g., user-specific or global), and there is no differentiation from sibling list tools like cor_list_clients. It is functional but not detailed.

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 like cor_get_ratecard or cor_list_clients. The context signal indicates many sibling list tools, but the description offers no criteria for selection, such as filtering or prerequisites.

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