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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that 'no resources are provisioned' and that invalid inputs fail, reinforcing non-destructive behavior. It also lists return payload types, adding useful context beyond annotations.

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 compact paragraph with every sentence adding distinct information: purpose, invocation pattern, override examples, return contents, and safety note. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but remains efficient and front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return formats, yet it still names the main output categories. It covers defaults, overrides, error behavior, and non-destructive nature. The pointer to '/agents#calculator' provides an escape hatch for further detail, making this adequate for a low-complexity single-parameter tool.

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 already documents the 'parameters' object as URL parameter strings, but the description enriches this by explaining that empty object gives defaults/choices and providing concrete key examples (requests, throughput, tokens). This adds practical usage meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 the specific action 'Compare one GKE hosting scenario with managed API baselines' and the resource 'LLM hosting costs'. It clearly distinguishes this calculation tool from the sibling content/readiness tools by mentioning the website calculator and return of cost data.

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 gives concrete calling instructions: start with parameters={} for defaults, then override URL parameters with examples. It explains when to use the tool but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, though the sibling list makes this obvious; a brief exclusion would push this to a 5.

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