Cost report: finance-events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false. The description adds the authorization class ('board_or_agent') and confirms GET request, which is consistent. No contradiction, but little extra value 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?

Description is very short (3 lines) and concise, but at the cost of informativeness. It is not wasteful, but could be improved with more relevant details.

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 complexity (many siblings, output schema exists), the description is insufficient. It does not describe what the output contains, how finance-events differ from other cost reports, or any filtering capabilities.

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?

Input schema has one required parameter (path.companyId) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter, its format, or purpose. Complete lack of parameter guidance.

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 states it is a 'Cost report' for 'finance-events' and shows the HTTP method and path, but does not explain what finance-events are or differentiate from many similar cost endpoints (e.g., costs_summary, costs_finance_by_biller). Purpose is somewhat clear but lacks specificity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many cost-related siblings, the agent has no basis to choose this over others like costs_finance_by_biller or costs_finance_by_kind.

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