estimate_charges

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

The description implies a non-executing estimation role, but beyond that it adds little behavioral context. The openWorldHint annotation is present but the description doesn't clarify whether external calls are made or if results are deterministic. No contradiction, but also no rich disclosure of side effects or computation 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, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. It enumerates charge types efficiently without any redundant fluff. Every word adds value.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core function well. It might benefit from mentioning whether the result is per-order or aggregated, but the simple scope and clear list of charges make it mostly complete. The absence of an output schema increases reliance on description, but the current description is adequate.

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 input schema already documents the 'orders' parameter with a detailed JSON example, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description lists charge types but doesn't add further meaning to the parameter itself beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Estimate' and clearly identifies the resource: 'brokerage, STT, transaction charges, GST, SEBI charges, and stamp duty for proposed trades.' It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'estimate_margin' by listing specific charge types, making its scope unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for proposed trades' provides clear context that this tool is for pre-trade planning. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases, such as when to use 'estimate_margin' instead. No misleading guidance, but no explicit when-not-to-use either.

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