Latest Cost Report

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

The annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds a small amount of behavioral context by saying the report is 'latest' and 'normalized,' but it does not disclose behavior such as default period handling or output shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the action and resource with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only annotations, a rich output schema, and well-documented parameters, the description is minimally sufficient for a basic fetch. Its main gap is the absence of routing context: an agent has no help distinguishing this from similar report/billing siblings or understanding when 'latest' is constrained by the period parameter.

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 high (83%), so the schema carries most of the parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond implying a project scope; it does not explain how 'period' or 'view' interact with 'latest.'

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 a specific action ('Fetch') and resource ('latest normalized Cloudeval cost report for a project'), so an agent can tell it is about cost reporting. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from closely related siblings like reports_show or billing_summary, so it stops short of full sibling discrimination.

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 given about when to choose this tool over reports_show, reports_list, or billing_summary, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites stated. The only contextual hint is 'for a project,' which is too weak to route an agent reliably.

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