wafeq_cost_centers_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the 'READ-ONLY' label adds no new behavioral information. The description adds only the HTTP path and does not disclose pagination defaults, auth requirements, rate limits, or response behavior. No contradiction exists, but the description contributes little beyond 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 front-loaded line with the read-only badge and endpoint is useful, but 'List cost centers' and 'Endpoint for retrieving a list of cost centers' are redundant restatements. The text is short, but one of the sentences could be removed without losing information.

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 simple read-only list operation with zero required parameters and full schema coverage for its two optional pagination inputs, the description is mostly sufficient. The endpoint path and 'list of cost centers' return intent give an agent enough to select and invoke the tool. Strong annotations further reduce the burden.

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?

Both parameters, page and page_size, have clear descriptions in the input schema, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable because the schema already fully documents the parameters. The baseline of 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 clearly identifies the operation as 'List cost centers' and provides the collection endpoint 'GET /cost-centers/'. The verb and resource are unambiguous, and the read-only framing distinguishes it from mutation siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with wafeq_cost_centers_retrieve, but the list/collection semantics are clear.

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 offers no guidance about when to use this tool versus wafeq_cost_centers_retrieve, create, update, or destroy. It only restates that it retrieves a list, leaving the agent to infer selection from the tool name alone. No alternatives, exclusions, or context are provided.

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