feegow_list_cost_centers

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It correctly indicates the tool is non-destructive and describes pagination via body parameters. However, it lacks details on response format, required permissions, or potential limitations (e.g., rate limits, default pagination size). This is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 a single sentence with a clarifying parenthetical. It is concise and front-loads the main purpose. It could be slightly improved by separating the safety note more clearly, but overall it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 (2 parameters, no enums, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, safety, and pagination. It omits details like response structure or error cases, but for a straightforward list endpoint this is reasonable. The context signals (high schema coverage, few parameters) support that the description is sufficiently complete.

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 100% (both 'page' and 'perpage' have descriptions). The description reinforces that pagination is in the body, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. According to the guidelines, baseline is 3 for high coverage, and the description does not provide significant additional insight.

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 primary function: 'Obtém a lista de centros de custos' (Gets the list of cost centers). It specifies that it is a query (consulta) despite using POST, and provides the HTTP endpoint. This is sufficient to distinguish it from sibling tools, none of which are cost-center-related.

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?

The description explicitly notes that it is a read-only operation ('não altera dados') and clarifies that pagination parameters are sent in the body. However, it does not mention when to avoid using this tool or compare it to similar list tools among siblings, which would be nice but not critical for a simple list tool.

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