Upgrade Cost Calculator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the purpose and gives no indication of how the budget is calculated, what factors affect the estimate, what output to expect, or any assumptions. This lack of transparency is a significant gap for a calculator with multiple input parameters.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise in word count, but it is severely under-specified. It lacks the additional structure and detail needed to be appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. The brevity is closer to the 'Process' example than to a well-structured description, earning a low score.

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 tool's complexity (six parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not state the return format (e.g., a cost estimate), explain how the parameters influence the budget, or provide any usage examples. The description provides almost no practical context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has six parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. It fails to explain the meaning of dbSize, downtime, ocaModules, customModules, sourceVersion, or targetVersion, leaving the agent without any semantic context for selecting correct values. This is a complete failure to compensate for the schema gap.

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 uses a clear verb-noun structure: 'Budget' (meaning estimate cost) and 'Odoo version upgrade' as the resource. It states the tool's primary function clearly. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this calculator from sibling tools like odoo-migration-cost-calculator or odoo-implementation-cost-calculator, which could overlap in scope, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as odoo-migration-cost-calculator or odoo-total-cost-of-ownership-calculator. It does not mention any use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left without contextual direction.

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