estimate_cost

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels. It discloses all behavioral traits: parameter effects (caching discounts, batch/off-peak discounts, VAT handling), default values, and return format (EUR cost with USD conversion). No contradictions.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence followed by detailed bullet points. It is somewhat lengthy but efficient for the complexity. Every sentence provides value; no waste.

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?

Given 11 parameters, no output schema, and high complexity, the description is complete. It covers all inputs with defaults, return format, and conversion notes. No gaps identified.

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 0%, but the description explains all 11 parameters in detail with examples and default behaviors (e.g., 'caching_hit_rate: 0..0.9 fraction... Default 0.'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it estimates monthly cost for LLM usage across API providers and self-hosted hardware, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like compare, estimate_vram, get_model, list_models, search_models.

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 clear context: if model_or_hardware is None, returns full comparison table; billing options are detailed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like compare or estimate_vram, lacking explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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