estimate_cost

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states a high-level purpose. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any side effects, leaving the agent entirely uninformed about behavior.

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 concise sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, though it errs on the side of under-specification, which is captured by other dimensions.

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?

The tool is simple (3 parameters, no output schema), but the description is still incomplete. It does not explain what the result of the cost estimation is, how units interact, or any expected outcome, making it inadequate for a tool with no annotations to support it.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. It does not mention material types, units, or quantity semantics, so the schema's enums and required fields are left without additional meaning.

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 'Quick cost estimation for materials' clearly indicates the tool's purpose of estimating costs for materials, with 'cost estimation' as the verb-noun pairing. It distinguishes from social/messaging siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar 'calculate_materials' sibling.

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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'calculate_materials'. The word 'Quick' hints at a fast estimation context, but this is vague and not actionable.

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