get_chargeback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the cost allocation formula (elapsed_hours × gpu_count × ClusterRate per workload) and the report's breakdown, which are key behavioral details. No contradiction with annotations (none present).

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 two short paragraphs: one summary and one argument list. Every sentence adds value, including the formula and usage context. No unnecessary text.

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 has only two required parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the report is, how it is computed, and why it is useful. No gaps in understanding the tool's purpose or execution.

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?

With schema coverage 0%, the description compensates fully by providing format details (four-digit year, month 1–12) and concrete examples (e.g., 2026, 5 for May). This adds value beyond the schema's basic type definitions.

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 it returns the chargeback report for a given month, broken down by tenant and agent. It explains the formula and use cases, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle billing or reporting differently.

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 explicitly mentions it is useful for inter-department billing or validating cloud invoices, indicating when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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