Resumen de gasto en OpenAI

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it reads from a 'log local' and groups by model, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether the cost is estimated or actual, or how the log is maintained. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and resource. It includes the key grouping detail ('agrupado por modelo') without any waste. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it reads, and how it groups results. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the return format, but since there's no output schema, a brief note on what the summary looks like could help. However, given the simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'dias' parameter with its range and default. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's function: summarizing calls and estimated cost from the local log, grouped by model. It uses a specific verb ('Resume') and resource ('llamadas y el costo estimado... log local'), which distinguishes it from the sibling image-generation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from any potential sibling that might also summarize logs, but given the sibling list, it's clear enough.

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 implies usage context: it's for reviewing call and cost summaries from the local log. It doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives, but the sibling tools are all image-related, so the context is clear. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, but the tool's purpose is straightforward enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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