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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (estimating costs and comparing approaches) but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only calculation, mention assumptions, or note any limitations. The description covers the main functionality but lacks a full safety profile.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the name and purpose, with no fluff. Every phrase adds value: self-managed vs API, wall-clock time, cheaper path.

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?

With 8 required parameters and no output schema, the description gives an overview but omits detailed input semantics, output format, and calculation assumptions. It is enough to understand the gist but not enough to invoke correctly without inspecting the schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It references the two cost models (GPU-hours and per-token API pricing), which maps to some parameters, but does not explain individual parameters like datasetTokensM, trainingTokensPerSecAggregate, or apiFineTuneId. The parameter names are partially self-explanatory, but the description falls short of fully compensating for the zero coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Estimate' and identifies the resource ('what a fine-tuning run costs'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling calculators by specifying the comparison between self-managed GPU-hours and managed API per-token pricing, plus wall-clock time and the cheaper path.

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 provides clear context: it is for estimating fine-tuning costs and comparing two pricing models. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, stopping short of a 5.

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