Cost report: quota-windows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the authorization class and HTTP method, which is useful context. There is no contradiction, and the description adds some 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 brief, consisting of one phrase and a technical line. It is efficient and front-loaded, but lacks supporting structure. It is concise but not sufficiently informative.

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?

Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description fails to explain what 'quota-windows' are, how the report differs from other cost reports, or any key details. Given the tool's role among many similar siblings, the description is incomplete for informed selection.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the single parameter (companyId). It does not clarify the parameter's meaning, format, or constraints, leaving the agent with no additional semantic information.

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 title 'Cost report: quota-windows' and the HTTP GET endpoint indicate the tool retrieves a cost report about quota windows. However, it does not explicitly state the verb or differentiate from similar cost-report siblings like 'costs_window_spend' or 'costs_summary', making the purpose somewhat vague.

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 mentions an authorization class ('board_or_agent'), but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative cost-report tools. With many sibling tools, the lack of usage context reduces its usefulness for selection.

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