get_pricing_estimate

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds valuable context beyond this by specifying authentication requirements and prerequisites (components must be added first via another tool). It does not contradict annotations, but it could provide more behavioral details like rate limits or error conditions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by prerequisites and authentication in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (pricing estimates with multiple quantities), the description is mostly complete with purpose, prerequisites, and authentication. However, without an output schema, it lacks details on return values (e.g., format of cost breakdown), which could be helpful for an agent. The annotations cover safety, but more behavioral context could enhance completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'game_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic context by reiterating that the game must have components added, but this is already implied in the usage guidelines. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most of the parameter documentation.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get per-component cost breakdown and total price') and resources ('for a game at various order quantities'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_game_details or get_component_details by focusing on pricing estimates rather than general game or component information.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool by stating prerequisites ('The game must have components added first via add_component_to_game') and authentication requirements. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, such as get_game_details for non-pricing information.

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