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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the behavioral traits 'deterministic' and 'signed' for the assessment, which are useful beyond the annotations, though it does not explain what 'signed' means or mention any other operational behavior.

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?

At one sentence, the description is compact and the 'deterministic signed assessment' clause is meaningful. However, the opening repeats the title and provides little structured information, making this conciseness more under-specification than efficient clarity.

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 schema lists required fields (steps, budget_atomic) without property definitions, so the description needed to explain what input is expected and what kind of assessment is produced. It only says 'supplied input,' leaving important context to inference despite the presence of an output schema.

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?

The schema exposes no property definitions (parameter count 0), so the description carries no parameter-semantics burden under the 0-param baseline. The description does not add detail about the required steps and budget_atomic fields, but it also does not mislead; coverage is reported at 100%.

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 leads with a restatement of the title ('Execution Cost Estimator') and then describes the tool only as a 'deterministic signed assessment over supplied input.' This lacks a specific verb and resource, and it does nothing to distinguish the tool from siblings such as transaction_risk_score or signed_result_comparator.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool, what it should not be used for, or which sibling alternatives exist. There are no prerequisites, no exclusion conditions, and no reference to the many cost/risk/budget siblings in the list.

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