Cost Locations: get cost locations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavior beyond those annotations: each request is capped at 1000 cost locations, and the response shape is described as row count plus an array. It also explicitly says 'Makes no changes to the accounting records,' aligning with the annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the read-only note, followed by purpose, response info, limit warning, and use case. It includes a minor redundant bold heading 'get cost locations' that duplicates the title, but overall every main sentence 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 simple 3-parameter read-only tool, robust annotations, complete schema coverage, and existing output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: purpose, return contents, limit, and where the data applies. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents `code`, `limit`, and `offset`. The description reinforces the 1000 limit but does not add meaningful parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get cost locations for a specified customer account' and explicitly states the response contains returned row count and an array of cost locations data. It further clarifies its role as listing cost centres for the `cost_location` fields on posting tools, which distinguishes it from mutation siblings like cost_locations_create/update/delete.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use to list the cost centres available for the `cost_location` fields on the posting tools.' It also notes the 1000-item request limit, helping agents understand pagination needs. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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