Get Kubernetes cost estimate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the meaningful fact that no cluster is provisioned, but omits pricing-specific behavior such as whether the estimate is exact, what currency/period it covers, or whether it can fail on invalid configurations.

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 sentences, both front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information: the action first, then the argument contract. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description says nothing about what the estimate returns — price shape, currency, billing period, or breakdown. For a 9-parameter, 6-required read tool the input side is fully covered by the schema, but the return-value side is left entirely to inference.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage across all 9 parameters, the schema already carries the field-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies. The sentence "Takes the same arguments as create_kubernetes_cluster" adds a useful semantic link — notably that fields like keypair are accepted even though they do not affect price — but no further parameter detail is offered.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — "Preview the price of a Kubernetes cluster configuration" — and immediately bounds the scope with "without creating it." It explicitly contrasts with create_kubernetes_cluster, so an agent can distinguish it from both the create sibling and the other get_cost_estimate_* tools.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: "Preview the price ... without creating it" suggests calling before a create, and "takes the same arguments as create_kubernetes_cluster" reinforces that pairing. However, it never says explicitly when to prefer this over the create call or how it relates to the other cost-estimate siblings (VM, block storage, VPC, public IP).

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