tokledger_cloud_savings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the computed outputs (local total, cloud-equivalent total, savings $ and %), which is meaningful transparency for a zero-param tool, but says nothing about whether it is a cheap read, what cloud pricing model 'cloud-equivalent' assumes, or the time window covered.

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?

A single compact line with no filler, front-loading the comparison concept before listing metrics. It is a sentence fragment rather than a full statement, which slightly limits readability but wastes nothing.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned figures. Yet key context is absent: the scope/period of the comparison and the basis for the 'cloud-equivalent' estimate, which an agent needs to interpret savings meaningfully.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no semantic burden on the description; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details that do not exist.

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 names the specific operation (local vs cloud cost comparison) and the metrics produced, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like model_breakdown or recent. However, it reads more as an output enumeration than a purpose statement, and does not state the scope of the comparison (whole ledger, project, or timeframe).

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 and no mention of alternatives such as toklrger_stats or model_breakdown, which also report cost data. The agent must infer when this tool is preferable to its siblings.

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