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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that results are deterministic and that the call costs $0.001, which is meaningful for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. However, it does not disclose side effects, read-only status, failure behavior, or limitations, so transparency is only partial.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core behavior and includes the key cost signal. Every element contributes useful information, making it highly concise and easy to scan.

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?

The output schema exists, so return structure does not need to be explained. The description gives a usable purpose and cost context, and the agent can call the tool with just the required text parameter. However, the role of agent_id and how 'per model family' applies to the input are left ambiguous, creating clear gaps.

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 explanation of the text or agent_id parameters. It does not say how the text array is handled, what agent_id controls, or how model families are selected. The agent must infer parameter meaning entirely from names and types, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 as providing deterministic token estimates per model family before a metered call. This is a specific resource and function, though it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit imperative. It is distinguishable from a generic run-model or cost tool.

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 a metered call' gives a clear context for when the tool should be used: as a pre-call estimation step. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use ddg_prompt_cost_budget or ddg_list_models instead, but the timing guidance is explicit and useful.

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