estimate

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

Annotations already declare this read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it does not ingest content, it produces an estimate, and cost is only included if a paid provider is configured. This complements rather than contradicts the annotations.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose, lists the key outputs, mentions the cost dependency, and ends with a practical use case. Every clause is relevant and there is no filler.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain the return structure. It covers the what, when, and why of usage, and is complemented by read-only annotations. A small omission is whether directory paths are processed recursively, but this is minor for a preview/estimate tool.

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's only parameter is a bare 'path' with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by clarifying that the path refers to a file or directory, which resolves the main ambiguity. More detail about path format or resolution would help, but this is sufficient for a single-parameter tool.

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 lead verb 'estimates' identifies a specific analysis action on a file or directory, and the description defines exactly what is estimated: chunk count, storage, and embedding cost. Framing it as 'Before ingesting' clearly distinguishes it from ingest_* siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'before a large ingest, preview before committing.' It does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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