get_cost_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral trait: the resource is entirely read-only with no mutation or list endpoints. It does not mention auth/permission requirements or how a missing/invalid id is reported, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Front-loads the core action in one sentence, then uses the second paragraph efficiently to explain the absence of sibling endpoints. The parenthetical '(Community Edition)' is the only slightly expendable detail; nothing else is padding.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the read-only constraint plus missing endpoints are covered. The one substantive omission is how to discover valid cost_type_id values given that no list tool exists, which an agent would need in practice.

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 coverage is 0% and there is a single required parameter, cost_type_id. The description only restates 'by id' without adding format, source, or validity constraints — notably, since no list endpoint exists, it never explains where an agent is expected to obtain a valid id. Baseline-level value over the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Get a cost type by id') that an agent can act on immediately. The second paragraph actively differentiates it from siblings by explaining that no list_cost_types/create/update/delete tools exist because the upstream API lacks those endpoints, so the agent won't hunt for them.

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?

Clearly communicates when NOT to look for alternatives: cost types are read-only and there is no collection endpoint, so this is the only cost-type tool. It stops short of stating the positive trigger (e.g. 'use when you already have a cost_type_id from elsewhere'), leaving the use case implied rather than explicit.

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