compare_egress

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two directions, free-tier credits, and an example pricing comparison. It also notes that VPC peering is not accounted for. However, it does not describe the output format or any error handling expectations.

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 verbose and includes promotional language ('a real competitive moat') that is unnecessary for tool selection. While front-loaded with purpose, the detailed pricing example adds length without improving clarity for the agent.

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, the description adequately covers behavior and limitations (VPC peering not modeled). However, it lacks information on expected output structure, error scenarios, or how to interpret the comparison results, leaving some gaps.

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 input schema has one parameter (transfers) with property descriptions, but the tool description adds context on the meaning of directions and free tiers (e.g., AWS/Azure 100 GB free, OCI 10 TB). The description coverage of parameters is 0% from the tool text, but the schema provides some detail, resulting in a moderate score.

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 tool compares data-transfer costs across four major cloud providers for a given volume. It specifies the two supported directions (out_to_internet and inter_region) with context on pricing tiers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like find_egress_arbitrage and compare_clouds.

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 for comparing egress costs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like assess_migration or find_egress_arbitrage. It mentions that VPC peering is not modeled, which is a limitation, but lacks direct guidance on scenarios or exclusions.

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