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

No annotations are provided, so the description must clarify behavior. It clearly indicates a calculation ('Calculate') which implies no transaction execution, and it specifies the inputs and outputs. However, it does not explicitly state that the cost is an estimate or that no purchase is performed, and it omits the influence of parameters like duration on the cost.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes. No redundant information.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and output but misses key contextual details such as the role of durationMinutes and resourceType in the calculation, and it does not mention that the result is an estimate subject to change. While schema descriptions fill some gaps, the description alone would not fully prepare an agent for edge cases.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that txCount and txType are used to compute 'energy needed' and 'cost,' giving them purpose. It does not describe all parameters in detail, but the schema handles that; the added context about how inputs drive the calculation is beneficial.

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 a specific verb 'Calculate' and clearly identifies the resource ('cost of purchasing TRON Energy or Bandwidth'). It states the required inputs ('transaction count and type') and the expected output ('energy needed and cost in TRX'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like buy_energy (actual purchase) and get_swap_quote (swap pricing).

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 implies the tool is for cost estimation, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as buy_energy, nor does it provide exclusions or preconditions. The sibling context helps, but the description lacks explicit guidance.

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