Cost report: by-project

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe. The description adds the authorization class 'board_or_agent' and confirms it's a GET operation, providing some extra behavioral context beyond 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 very short and front-loaded with the title and endpoint. Every sentence serves a purpose, though it could be expanded slightly to include parameter info without losing conciseness.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description provides basic context: title, endpoint, auth class. It does not describe the output structure or behavior like pagination, but given the output schema exists, this is acceptable.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter (path.companyId) with no description. The tool description does not mention this parameter or its purpose, leaving the agent to infer from the endpoint. Given 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate.

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 it's a 'Cost report: by-project' and provides the REST endpoint GET /api/companies/{companyId}/costs/by-project, indicating it retrieves cost data grouped by project. The title reinforces this, helping differentiate it from sibling cost tools like by-agent or summary.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pc_get_companies_by_company_id_costs_by_agent or pc_get_companies_by_company_id_costs_summary. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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