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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, yet the tool is described as a pure price lookup; the description never explains why a cost estimate might mutate anything or whether the estimate is binding/charged. It also contradicts itself on pricing behaviour ('live rate card' vs 'Fixed price $0.01 per call'), which leaves the agent unsure whether cost varies with model or tokens. No permission, rate-limit, or billing context is given.

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?

Three very short sentences with no filler, but the final sentence is a fragment that restates the second and adds no actionable information. Sizing is fine; ordering mixes the mechanism (rate card) with a flat price before the usage hint.

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 no output schema, no annotation-level detail, and 0% schema description coverage on three parameters, the description should explain the return value (total cost? breakdown?) and the meaning of model/token inputs. It does neither, and its fixed-price assertion conflicts with the parameter set, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently.

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% across three parameters, so the description must carry the load and does not: it never explains what 'model' should contain (a model id from fikra_list_models?) or what units/format input_tokens and output_tokens take as strings. Worse, the claim of a fixed $0.01 per call suggests the token parameters are irrelevant, which is actively confusing about how cost is computed.

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 verb and resource: estimate the cost of a planned inference call. An agent can distinguish it from generation/analysis siblings such as fikra_compare_models or fikra_list_models. It stops short of distinguishing it from the other pricing/quoting siblings (fikra_quote, fikra_get_tool_prices), so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 'Knowing the price before running a job' implies the when: check cost ahead of execution. There is no explicit alternative named (e.g. use fikra_quote for job-level pricing or fikra_get_tool_prices for the catalogue) and no statement of when not to use it, so usage is only implied.

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