Cost report: finance-summary

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds the authorization class ('board_or_agent'), which provides useful security context beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention any other behavioral traits.

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 extremely short with only two sentences, front-loading the title and operation. It is concise with no wasted words, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 has one parameter and an output schema, the description lacks context about the report content, when to use it, and how it relates to other cost tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the description is still too sparse to be fully useful.

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 0%, but the description does not describe the single parameter (path.companyId) at all. While the tool name implies the parameter's purpose, the description fails to add any semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 "Cost report: finance-summary" and the HTTP method, indicating it retrieves a finance summary costs report for a company. However, it does not explain what the report contains or how it differs from sibling cost tools like pc_get_companies_by_company_id_costs_summary, leaving ambiguity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many cost-related sibling tools. The agent is left to infer usage context without explicit when-to or when-not-to guidance.

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