get_cost_trending

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, though the verb 'get' implies it. It does disclose a limitation: the group_by parameter currently only supports 'namespace'. More explicit behavioral context would improve transparency.

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 reasonably concise with a clear docstring format. The opening sentence is front-loaded and meaningful. Parameter descriptions are placed in an Args block, which is structured and easy to scan. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'default: namespace (default: namespace)') could be tightened, but overall effective.

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 has 6 parameters (1 required) and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers input semantics and notes a limitation (only namespace supported for group_by). No output schema details are needed. The description is complete for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to invoke it.

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%, but the description provides rich semantic details for all 6 parameters: includes an example for cluster_id, default values, and specific notes (e.g., group_by only supports 'namespace', account_id defaults to an environment variable). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts with a clear purpose: 'Get cost trends over multiple time periods for an Ocean cluster.' It specifies the verb (get), resource (cost trends), and scope (Ocean cluster), which effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_cluster_costs.

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 states the tool shows week-over-week or custom period cost changes, which implies usage for trend analysis. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_cluster_costs, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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