get_bc_account_cost_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool gets a cost summary but does not explain data freshness, aggregation details, authorization requirements, or output format. The description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand side effects or prerequisites.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could include brief parameter guidance without adding significant length. Still, it avoids unnecessary verbiage.

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 tool has 5 parameters (3 required) and an output schema, but the description provides no details on pagination, required inputs, or what the cost summary contains (e.g., currency, breakdown by account). An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without additional parameter documentation. The description is inadequate for full contextual completeness.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description does not explain any parameters. The schema provides only parameter names and types (e.g., string, integer) without formats or constraints. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify date formats, pagination behavior, or the meaning of 'bc_id'.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'cost summary for all ad accounts under a BC', and the scope 'within a date range'. It also mentions a common use case 'weekly/monthly spend review'. This distinguishes it from other sibling tools that operate on ads, campaigns, or individual accounts.

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 provides a usage context ('weekly/monthly spend review'), but it does not specify when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., get_bc_balance_tool for balance, get_bc_transactions_tool for transactions). There is no guidance on pagination or required parameters beyond the implicit date range.

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