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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the estimate (tokens, per-call/per-pass cost, batch discount, cheapest model, GPU fine-tuning), but says nothing about pricing model currency handling, latency, rate limits, or how the estimate is scoped to a resource.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core deliverable ('Estimated cost of a ContexteTech resource ... in euros') before listing what the estimate includes. Slightly telegraphic and comma-heavy, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter, read-only estimation tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the estimate contains, which substitutes for the missing return-value documentation. It never explains what a 'code' resolves to or whether any setup is required, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'code' parameter, so the schema already documents it; the description only implies that this code identifies a 'ContexteTech resource'. Baseline 3 applies because the structured field does the heavy lifting and the description adds no format or resolution details beyond it.

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 names a specific deliverable (a cost estimate in euros for a ContexteTech resource) and enumerates its components: input/output tokens, cost per call or pass, batch discount, cheapest model, and GPU fine-tuning for datasets. It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a verb+resource construction, but it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like fetch, search_resources, or fill_prompt.

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?

There is no statement about when to call this versus the alternatives (fetch, load_resource, search), no prerequisites, and no indication of whether it should precede or follow loading a resource. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and the enumerated output components.

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