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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Calling it a 'quote' implies a pure computation with no persistence or side effects, but that is never stated, nor is whether the result is a non-binding estimate or an actual billing event. Minimum-viable disclosure for a read-style compute tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the operation, the inputs it consumes, and the contrast with a price table. No filler, nothing that could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all five optional (default 0) parameters are at least named. Still missing for an agent to call it confidently: whether omitting parameters means zero consumption, what units are expected, and whether the quote has billing consequences.

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 schema exposes only bare titles, so the description does real work: 'токены, CPU, байты, записи, внешние вызовы' maps cleanly onto tokens, cpu_seconds, bytes_out, storage_writes and external_calls. It does not clarify units (seconds vs. something else, byte units) or how the values combine, keeping it below 5.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Посчитать цену по фактическому расходу') and enumerates the consumption dimensions being priced. It is clearly distinct from the utility-style siblings (check_skill, suite_status, trust_report, verify_work), but it never explicitly contrasts itself with them, so it stops short of a 5.

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 trailing clause '— вместо прайсовой таблицы' hints at when to prefer this tool (consumption-based instead of a static price table), which is implied usage rather than an explicit when/when-not rule. No prerequisites, no named alternative tool, no statement of when this should not be called.

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