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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description explicitly states it performs a 'GET' and 'recovers' data, indicating a read-only operation with no mention of destructive side effects. It also clarifies what it returns (cost/trace). For a simple retrieval tool, this is transparent and adequate, though it does not discuss error handling or authentication requirements, which are not critical for this simple GET.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the essential information: HTTP method, resource path, and purpose. There is no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently communicates the tool's core function and input requirement.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context. It states what the tool does and the input needed. It could mention that the support_reference must be from a prior call, but that is already in the schema description. It does not explain what the 'cost/trace' response looks like, but without an output schema that is not strictly required. Overall, it is complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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%: the schema already fully describes 'support_reference' as 'UUID support reference from a prior call.' The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. According to the calibration, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not augment the parameter semantics further.

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 HTTP verb (GET) and resource path, and specifies the purpose: 'recover cost/trace for a prior request.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_generation_status (which focuses on generation status) and get_capacity (which likely deals with capacity). An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs.

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 implies usage: when you have a support_reference from a prior call and need its cost/trace. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions. With 17 sibling tools, it would be beneficial to state when this tool is preferred over others (e.g., when a support_reference is available). The guidance is present implicitly but not made explicit.

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