ck_cost_optimizer

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description confirms 'Read-only — no budget records are written' and outlines two modes with their outputs (suggest: optimization tips; compare: price breakdown). This adds value beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences: purpose and read-only status, mode definitions, and usage guidance with an alternative. It is front-loaded, efficient, and every sentence adds actionable value without redundancy.

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 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core logic (two modes, parameter requirements, return types) and provides a real-world usage scenario. While it omits the 'spending' parameter, the overall completeness is high for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 71% schema description coverage, the description clarifies the critical parameter 'mode' and maps other parameters to modes (e.g., session_id for suggest; task_description, estimated_tokens, top_provider, top_model for compare). However, the 'spending' parameter is not mentioned, leaving a small 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get cost optimization suggestions or compare AI provider/model prices for a task.' It specifies two distinct modes (suggest, compare) and contrasts with sibling tool ck_budget for recording spend, making the purpose 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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use ck_cost_optimizer before choosing a model for expensive multi-agent work; use ck_budget to record and enforce spend limits.' The description details which parameters to pass for each mode (session_id for suggest, task_description/estimated_tokens/top_provider/top_model for compare), offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use information.

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