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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful 'No auth required' fact and that a sample_id is accepted, but the sample_id claim conflicts with the schema, which exposes only filepath and outputFormat.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the estimate scope followed by input/auth facts. Minimal waste, though the nonexistent sample_id reference is a small structural flaw.

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 two required parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should at least explain what the returned estimate looks like and what outputFormat controls. It omits the required outputFormat entirely and misdescribes the input options.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions only 'file path' (mapping to the filepath param) and a 'sample_id' that does not exist in the schema, while never explaining the required outputFormat parameter or its accepted values.

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?

States a specific verb ('Estimate') and resources ('cost and latency') scoped to 'parsing a document', which clearly separates it from the mcpParse sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or explaining how the estimate relates to the actual parse operation.

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 implied use case (estimate before parsing) is inferable, and 'No auth required' gives a precondition. However there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no statement of when to prefer this over mcpParse or mcpConvert, and no guidance on required inputs.

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