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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It notes idempotency (a key behavioral trait) and implies mutation ('records'), but lacks details on error handling, duplicate behavior, authentication requirements, or side effects.

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 single Korean sentence is concise but omits essential details. It front-loads the core purpose, but lacks structure (e.g., headings) and could benefit from explaining parameters or usage.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and multiple sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, idempotency_key behavior, token fields, or how this differs from baton_cost_summary.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It adds meaning for three parameters (provider, model, task) as grouping keys, but leaves 6 parameters (api_key, amount_usd, idempotency_key, input_tokens, output_tokens, source) unexplained, which is insufficient for a 9-parameter tool.

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 states the verb 'records' and the resource 'cost records', with grouping dimensions (provider, model, task) and idempotency. It distinguishes itself from siblings like baton_cost_summary (which likely reads) by implying this is a write operation, though not explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as baton_confirm_payment or baton_consolidate. The description mentions idempotency, hinting at retry safety, but does not specify conditions or exclusions.

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