Get VPC cost estimate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description reinforces this with 'without creating it' and hints that pricing is external (openWorldHint), but adds nothing about what the estimate contains, currency, or pricing volatility.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The non-mutating nature and the resource are front-loaded, with the argument-reuse note second. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the agent gets no indication of the shape of the returned estimate (fields, currency, granularity), which is the main gap. Annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries the inputs, so what remains missing is moderate rather than critical for a read-only preview tool.

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%, so all four parameters (cidr, name, region, description) are already documented with examples. The description's only parameter-related content is 'Same arguments as create_vpc_network', which adds a useful reuse hint but no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 VPC configuration'. The 'without creating it' clause distinguishes it from the actual create operation, and the resource name separates it from sibling estimates like get_cost_estimate_vm or get_cost_estimate_object_storage. Not quite a 5 because it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast against.

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 phrase 'without creating it' implies the intended pre-creation use case, and 'Same arguments as create_vpc_network' points to a paired operation. However, create_vpc_network does not appear in the sibling list, so the reference is dangling, and there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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