martin_estimate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds that it estimates 'without spending anything,' reinforcing the cost-free nature. It also mentions 'Pre Work Burn' which adds context about outputs, but overall adds moderate value beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence immediately conveys the action and outputs, and the second gives usage context. Every part 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?

The description explains the tool's purpose, usage context, and key outputs (cost, route, Pre Work Burn). An output schema exists, so return values are covered structurally. With good annotations and a single required parameter, the description is complete for effective use.

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 100%, so the input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters. The description does not add further details about parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 'Estimate the cost, recommended route, and Pre Work Burn for an objective without spending anything.' The verb 'estimate' and the resource 'objective' are explicit. It distinguishes from sibling martin_run by advising use before it.

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 says 'Use before martin_run to understand what a task will cost,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly list when not to use or provide alternatives, but the guidance is direct and actionable.

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