dfm_calculate_manufacturing_cost

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It only states the action and mentions inputs that are not actually parameters, failing to explain how the tool uses tier, quantity, or manufacturer, or what the output contains. The inconsistency between description and schema further reduces transparency.

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, but it contains irrelevant and misleading information. It does not earn its place because it misrepresents the tool's inputs, making it potentially harmful rather than helpful.

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 three parameters with 0% schema coverage and no useful description, the context is severely incomplete. The description mentions non-existent inputs and omits any useful details about the actual parameters or how cost estimation works, leaving the agent unable to use 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. Instead, it references nonexistent inputs (board area, layers, via count) and provides no meaning for the actual parameters (tier, quantity, manufacturer). This is misleading and fails 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 clearly states the tool estimates fabrication cost, which is a specific verb and resource. However, it incorrectly lists 'board area, layers, and via count' as inputs when the schema actually takes tier, quantity, and manufacturer, making the purpose somewhat confusing.

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 like dfm_run_manufacturer_check. It implies usage for cost estimation, but there is no explicit context, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools.

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