get_recompute_quote

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns an informational estimate with no charge, includes staleness detection, and throws a 503 error when verdict observability is unavailable. While it doesn't detail auth or rate limits, the read-only nature is implied.

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 concise with three front-loaded sentences. The first states purpose, the second adds key caveats, and the third mentions error condition. No superfluous content.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It usefully mentions computed_at and rate_version fields and the 503 error. However, it does not cover error handling for invalid parameters or rate limits, which would be helpful.

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 input schema has two parameters with only 50% description coverage (model_id described, server_version not). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema for model_id and is silent on server_version. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 retrieves a pre-flight cost estimate for 'recompute_verdicts' on a model, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling 'recompute_verdicts' tool by being informational and non-chargeable.

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 explains when to use the tool (before running recompute_verdicts for an estimate) and what the estimate includes (computed_at, rate_version). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but context is clear.

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