estimate_cost

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 disclose one important behavioral trait — no cost is incurred — but says nothing about authentication, whether the estimate is authoritative or approximate, rate limits, or how results should be interpreted before calling preapprove_spend.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the key differentiator. No wasted words and no buried information.

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, but the tool takes a complex array of batch line items and the description gives no guidance on shaping that input or on how model/duration/reference parameters affect the price. For a nested pricing tool this is under-specified.

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 the description never mentions the 'items' array, the PlanItem structure, or any of the fields that drive pricing (kind, model, duration, resolution, reference images). The nested schema defines fields internally, but the description contributes no parameter meaning at all.

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 (price) and resource (a plan) and adds the key scope qualifier 'without spending anything', which separates it from the spend/generate siblings. It does not name a specific alternative (e.g. preapprove_spend or spend_status), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Without spending anything' implies a dry-run/preview usage window, which hints at when to call this rather than actually generating or spending. However, it names no alternative tool and gives no explicit when-not condition, leaving the before-vs-after-spend workflow to inference.

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