merit_list_cost_centers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it adds useful wire-level context: the HTTP method/endpoint (POST /api/v1/getcostcenters) and the unrestricted scope ('No filters'). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe the response shape, though 'List' strongly implies a non-destructive fetch.

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?

A single 12-word sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded, followed by the endpoint and the scope note. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential facts: what is listed, the endpoint, and the lack of filters. The only minor gap is no explicit mention of the return payload format, but 'List cost centers' and the tool name make the expected result predictable.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the rubric baseline is 4. 'No filters' reinforces that no arguments are accepted, which is consistent with the empty input schema, and there are no undocumented parameters for the description to compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Merit Aktiva cost centers') and adds the exact endpoint (POST /api/v1/getcostcenters). The resource is unique among the extensive sibling list, so an agent can distinguish it from tools like merit_list_locations or merit_list_departments without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance is provided; the description does not name alternatives or contexts where this tool should or should not be chosen. 'No filters' is an invocation detail rather than usage guidance, so when to select it is only implied by its resource name.

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