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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states this is a rough estimate, not a quote, and discloses the underlying assumptions (units/round, token/round, pricing). It also implies no workspace is created or money spent. It does not explicitly state whether the tool makes a network call or returns a simple number, but the caveats and calculator reference provide strong transparency.

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 well-structured: purpose is front-loaded, followed by the formula assumptions, then a caveat and alternative. Every sentence adds value, and the length is justified by the need to explain the estimation model. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, when to use, assumptions, caveats, and an alternative tool. Since there is no output schema, the description does not explicitly describe the return value format, but the purpose statement ('Estimate the cost... versus...') makes the expected output reasonably inferable. This is a minor gap in an otherwise complete definition.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about the formula's assumptions (e.g., 16 units/round, ~9,600 tokens/round) but does not add new meaning specific to the 'agents' or 'rounds_per_agent' parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Estimate the cost of coordinating a swarm on AANet versus relaying...' It clearly distinguishes this from other AANet tools by framing it as a pre-workspace planning calculation, not an operational action. The reference to the calculator URL reinforces the exact purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'before you create a workspace or spend anything.' It also names the alternative for later, real-world measurement: 'see aanet_get_activity on an actual workspace for your own measured cost once you're running for real.' This gives the agent both a trigger condition and a sibling alternative.

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