aps_compute_compute_axis_weights

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

The description reveals the formula (prompt_tokens + completion_tokens * 3.0), normalization to sum ~1.0, output format with 6-digit decimals, and references the spec. However, it does not discuss error handling, edge cases, or behavior for invalid inputs, and the profile parameter is not fully explained.

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 at three sentences, front-loads the core action, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence provides essential information about input, formula, and output.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, formula, and output type. It mentions the return format and how it integrates into a workflow. Minor gaps exist in error conditions and full output structure.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining providers as 'per-provider billing records' and noting the output's role in a pipeline. However, the parameter definitions are largely covered by the schema, and the description does not significantly augment beyond that.

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 explicitly states the tool computes the C-axis fractional weight vector from billing records, specifies the input parameters and the formula, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like aps_compute_data_axis_weights by referencing 'C-axis'.

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 mentions the output feeds into aps_construct_attribution_primitive, suggesting a pipeline, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other compute tools (e.g., aps_compute_data_axis_weights). No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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