Compare models

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail (results sorted ascending by total cost), but says nothing about cost assumptions, currency, or how models are resolved.

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 tight sentence with the action and the output ordering front-loaded. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. However, with 0% schema coverage on four required numeric parameters and no usage routing against estimate_monthly_cost, the definition is only minimally sufficient for correct invocation.

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 all four parameters are required, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'models' and 'monthly costs' but never clarifies the token-volume parameters (input_tokens_per_request, output_tokens_per_request, requests_per_month) beyond what their names already imply, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (compare) plus resource (monthly costs for multiple models) and even describes the ordering behavior. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the single-model sibling estimate_monthly_cost by scoping to 'multiple models', but never names that alternative explicitly.

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?

'Multiple models' implies this is the multi-model variant versus estimate_monthly_cost, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. Usage is only inferable from the plural scope.

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