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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies that the tool is a pre-payment estimate, but it does not clearly state that no payment or run is triggered, nor does it mention any side effects, limitations, or what the estimate represents. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the phrase 'BEFORE paying'.

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, well-structured sentence that gets straight to the point. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains 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?

While the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description lacks any guidance on input parameters, defaults, or what the estimate encompasses. The lack of parameter semantics and minimal behavioral context makes it incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool, despite the presence of an output 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%, and the description provides no information about the parameters (gpu, mem_gb, seconds). It does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of each parameter.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Estimate') and a distinct resource ('ANM cost of an Animica Studio run'), while the phrase 'BEFORE paying' differentiates it from execution tools like animica_studio_functions. This provides a strong contrast with siblings.

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 phrase 'BEFORE paying' gives clear contextual usage (use this tool before committing to payment), and it implicitly distinguishes from an actual studio run. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a full guideline.

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