Get VM cost estimate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces this with 'without creating anything'. It adds genuinely new information by disclosing the return shape ('hourly/monthly cost breakdowns'), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about failure behavior for invalid or over-limit 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, front-loaded with the core action and the non-mutating guarantee, then the routing advice. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

For an 11-parameter nested tool with no output schema, the description does the essential work: it promises a cost breakdown and frames the call as a dry run. It could be stronger by noting which of the create-style arguments do not affect the estimate and what happens on an invalid configuration.

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% and the nested vmSpecs/vmAccess objects are well documented, so the baseline is 3. The only added meaning is 'takes the same arguments as create_vm', which hints that provisioning-only fields (keypairs, userdata, networkAccess) are irrelevant to pricing, but it never states that explicitly and references a tool not present in the sibling list.

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 VM configuration') and immediately scopes it against the risky sibling by saying 'without creating anything'. An agent can tell this apart from create_vm and from the other get_cost_estimate_* tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit timing and condition: 'use this before create_vm when cost matters', which names both the alternative and the trigger. It stops short of saying when not to use it (e.g. that it cannot provision or validate quota), so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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