Estimate Dare credit cost

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: it performs no network request and spends no credits, and operates purely with local arithmetic. This gives the agent confidence about side effects and cost implications that annotations alone do not fully convey.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second discloses key behavioral traits, and the third gives concrete usage scenarios. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential selection and invocation context: what the tool does, that it is offline and free, and when to use it. The main omission is the exact return format, but the tool's purpose is simple enough that the output is largely inferable, and the schema covers all parameter semantics.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds only high-level hints like 'compare quality tiers' and 'size a batch,' which map to quality and count but do not explain parameter behavior. This meets the baseline but does not exceed what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Estimate the credit cost of a generation before running it.' It also clarifies the scope with 'Purely local arithmetic: no network request, no credits spent,' which distinguishes it from generation and balance tools. The purpose is unmistakable and well differentiated from siblings like dare_generate_video and dare_get_credit_balance.

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 says when to use the tool: 'Use this to check affordability, compare quality tiers, or size a batch.' It clearly establishes that this is a pre-generation cost check. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, though the behavior makes this largely implicit.

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