get_cost_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about read-only status, permissions, aggregation behavior, or what is actually returned. Two noun phrases give the agent zero behavioral context for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 text is short but that is under-specification rather than conciseness: it is a title-like fragment with no leading verb or scope statement. Shortness here costs information rather than saving it.

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 annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description should at least explain the return shape and the daily flag's effect. It covers neither, so an agent cannot call this tool confidently.

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 single parameter 'daily' (boolean, default true) has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. Because coverage is far below 50%, the description needed to explain what the flag toggles (per-day breakdown vs. aggregate to a period), and it does not.

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 names the resources involved (cost and remaining budget), which goes slightly beyond the name by adding the budget-remaining notion, but it contains no verb and no scope. It doesn't distinguish this from siblings like get_report, so an agent still has to guess that this is a read-only cost/budget summary tool.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance anywhere in the description. With get_report as a sibling, the absence of any routing hint leaves selection entirely to inference.

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