list_work_package_cost_entries

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them: the endpoint is unpaginated server-side, warning the agent that the response may be large and that paging parameters do not exist. It stops short of describing response size limits or rate behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one non-obvious caveat. Nothing is redundant with the schema or the annotations.

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 single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description tells the agent what it gets (every cost entry for one work package, in one unpaginated call) and what to pass. The remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the shape of a cost entry (amount, cost type, dates) is never described.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100% and only one parameter, the schema already explains that work_package_id accepts an integer id or a display id like "PROJ-51" and not the bare number. The description adds nothing on top of that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — list all cost entries recorded against a work package — so an agent can tell this is a per-work-package cost listing. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_work_package_costs_by_type (aggregated by type) or get_cost_entry (single record), which an agent could easily confuse.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only usage-relevant signal is the note that the endpoint is unpaginated, which implies 'do not bother with offset/limit' but does not tell the agent when to choose this over the costs-by-type or single-entry siblings.

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