estimate_migration_cost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully discloses that the estimate is derived from checked-in canonical pricing, implying a deterministic, non-live computation rather than a network-dependent query. It does not mention side effects, but the verb 'estimate' strongly indicates a read-only calculator.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to defining the action, object, and pricing source, making it highly efficient.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values are covered, and the core purpose is clear. However, with five required parameters and zero parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete for confident invocation, especially regarding what source/target refer to and what time period 'recurring' implies.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining source, target, requests, or token units. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, 'source' and 'target' are ambiguous without migration context, and the description adds little to the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Estimate') and a clear resource ('recurring token cost') with a defined data source ('checked-in canonical pricing'). It distinguishes itself from sibling query_live_pricing by explicitly anchoring to canonical, not live, pricing.

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 gives clear context: use this when estimating recurring token costs based on checked-in canonical pricing rather than live rates. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the canonical-pricing qualifier is a strong usage signal.

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