estimate_mlc_cost

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low, and the description adds real context by disclosing that prices derive from the CAPACITY_MSU_RATING and MLC_MSU_MONTHLY_PRICE configuration values — telling the agent results are config-dependent. It stops short of saying what happens when those configs are unset or what the returned estimate looks like.

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 tight sentences: the capability is front-loaded and the pricing-source caveat follows as supporting context. Nothing is redundant with the name or title.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it never says whether the result is a dollar figure, a cost breakdown, or an MSU-to-cost mapping. It also leaves the all-parameters-optional situation (nothing can be estimated without jobId, cpuSeconds, or msuConsumed) unaddressed, though annotations and the rich schema cover most of the rest.

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 all four parameters are already fully documented, and the description does not elaborate beyond the schema. It implies the CPU-vs-MSU choice but adds no format, unit, or precedence detail for the mutually exclusive inputs, nor mentions the optional `environment` parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Estimate MLC cost attribution") and names the two measurement bases it accepts (CPU seconds or MSU consumption), which maps directly onto the schema's numeric inputs. It is immediately distinguishable from the job/CICS/DB2 siblings, none of which deal with cost, though it does not explicitly say so.

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?

Usage is implied by the two input modes, and the schema documents that jobId is mutually exclusive with the numeric inputs, but the description itself offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to any alternative sibling.

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