audit_get_cost_summary

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but doesn't state it explicitly, nor does it mention return format, side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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, succinct sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While concise, the brevity also contributes to incompleteness, but on this dimension alone it is well-structured.

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, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain the nature of the cost summary, how 'model and action type' map to parameters, or expected date formats. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on this description alone.

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 fails to explain the parameters. It mentions 'date range' but doesn't clarify start_date/end_date format. It also mentions 'model and action type' which are not present in the schema parameters, causing confusion. The description adds little value beyond the bare parameter names.

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' with a specific resource 'cost summary' and scope 'by model and action type for a date range'. This differentiates it from log-related siblings like audit_get_log. However, it could explicitly contrast with siblings to score a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like audit_get_log. No mention of prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it. The description simply states what it does without any routing context.

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