Simular custo no Flow

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

The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and reinforces it by stressing that nothing is generated, and it discloses that the returned value matches exactly what the Flow UI shows. It does not cover edge behavior such as invalid model handling or where the cost baseline comes from beyond the UI, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the counterfactual ('SEM gerar nada') is placed where it reads first. Nothing to trim.

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 eight optional parameters, no output schema, and rich parameter descriptions in the schema, the description covers the core contract (simulate, return cost, generate nothing). It could say more about whether the response includes per-item cost breakdown for quantity>1, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 75% and the schema already explains model options, duration rules, project resolution, and quantity cost multiplication. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, so the 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 (simulate a Flow generation, return credit cost) and explicitly contrasts with generation using 'SEM gerar nada', which cleanly separates it from flow_gerar_video and flow_gerar_imagem. An agent can tell what it does 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?

Implied pre-generation cost check is clear from 'simula ... e devolve o custo', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no reference to alternatives such as flow_creditos or flow_gastos. The guidance is inferable but not stated.

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