Get Cost Saved Report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context: data comes from real logged usage, local delegation costs ~$0, and saved_usd is the orchestrator-equivalent cost not spent. It does not mention read-only behavior or edge cases, but the core semantics are transparent.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying sentence about local delegation cost and saved_usd meaning earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: source of data, period options, profile-dependent rates, and the economic meaning of saved_usd. It does not specify the exact return shape, but for a simple report tool this is adequate.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does: it names the period values (all/day/week/month) and explains that profile determines the input/output rates used for the calculation. It does not define the profile string format, but enough meaning is added for correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('tokens and estimated USD saved') with clear scope: real logged sub-agent usage over a period at the profile's rates. It is precise enough to distinguish from all sibling tools, none of which share this reporting 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 implies when to use it (after sub-agent usage, to see savings) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. The sibling list contains related sub-agent tools, but the description does not differentiate this report from them.

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