debim_cost

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the fallback behavior when prices_yaml is omitted and the optional CSV export, but says nothing about file overwrite semantics for export_csv_path, permissions, or other side effects of a tool that can write output.

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?

Four short, front-loaded lines with the core purpose stated first and no filler. Efficient, though the trailing export sentence is a minor detail that could be folded in.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the main fallback and export behaviors. However, for a tool that can write files with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, the absence of manifest_yaml explanation and export side-effect details leaves gaps.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the prices_yaml omission case and the purpose of export_csv_path, but leaves manifest_yaml (the only required parameter) entirely unexplained, so coverage is only partial.

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 ('Calculate full Bill of Quantities (BOQ) and cost estimation') and clarifies the mechanism ('Matches QTO quantities against unit material and labor prices'), which implicitly distinguishes it from debim_qto. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling debim_cost_template.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are named. The only conditional advice is 'If prices_yaml is omitted, auto-generates a benchmark template,' which is a behavior rather than a usage rule, and the related debim_cost_template sibling is never mentioned.

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