get_spend_trend

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that anomalous spikes are flagged automatically and that the tool requires configuration via set_cluster_rate. It could be more explicit that it is read-only, but the 'get' prefix and lack of modifications imply this.

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, well-structured with a clear summary sentence followed by additional context and an arguments section. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers the return structure (daily cost per cluster/tenant), use case, anomaly detection, and prerequisites. It could improve by mentioning response format, but it's sufficiently complete.

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 input schema only defines a 'days' parameter with a default, but the description adds crucial semantics: it specifies a maximum of 90 days and clarifies the lookback window. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 GPU spend trend over a specified number of days, providing daily cost series per cluster and per tenant. This distinguishes it from other get_* tools like get_budget or get_chargeback, which serve different purposes.

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 a use case (detecting cost regressions after new deployments) and a prerequisite (requires cluster rates via set_cluster_rate). However, it does not compare to alternative tools or specify when not to use it, which keeps it from a higher score.

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