ClockNext: verify signal (dry run)

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states side effects (or lack thereof): 'Records nothing and never bills.' It also reveals the return behavior: 'Returns the projected usage log (cost, credits drawn, applied rules).' This gives the agent confidence that the operation is safe and non-mutating, which is critical for a dry-run tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the essential 'dry run' concept, and every clause earns its place. It packs purpose, behavioral guarantees, and return value into a compact, scannable format without wordiness or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description supplies a clear summary of the return value: 'projected usage log (cost, credits drawn, applied rules).' It also gives the usage context (pre-traffic validation). It does not detail error cases (e.g., invalid customer ID) or explain the 'plan' wiring context, but for a selection/invocation task the description is nearly complete. A slightly richer error-behavior note would earn a 5.

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 input schema already provides exhaustive descriptions for all 8 parameters (100% coverage), including enums, defaults, and semantics. The description adds only a general reference to 'customer, model, and plan' but does not elaborate on parameter formats or interplay. Thus the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description meets the baseline without adding significant extra parameter meaning.

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 opens with a precise verb-phrase: 'Validate and PRICE a usage signal WITHOUT recording it — a dry run.' It clearly identifies the tool's function (dry-run validation/pricing) and resource (usage signal), and implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling recording tool (clocknext_record_usage) by emphasizing that it records nothing. This unambiguous purpose leaves no room for confusion.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'so you can confirm the customer, model, and plan are wired up correctly before sending real traffic.' It implies using this before clocknext_record_usage. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or provide exclusion criteria (e.g., 'do not use for actual recordings'), so it falls just short of a full 5.

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