estimate_evaluation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description only states the tool returns a cost estimate, but fails to mention any behavioral traits: it does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, whether it affects state, what the response format is, or if authentication or quota are needed. This is a significant gap.

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 with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose, making it immediately clear what the tool does. Every part of the description 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the cost estimate depends on (e.g., model, dataset size, evaluators), how to interpret the result, or any constraints (e.g., balance requirement). The description lacks completeness for a meaningful cost estimation 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 input schema describes all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how each parameter influences the cost estimate.

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 purpose: 'Get a cost estimate for an evaluation before running it.' It specifies a concrete verb ('Get') and resource ('cost estimate for evaluation'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools such as create_evaluation (which runs the evaluation) and estimate_job (which estimates jobs, not evaluations).

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 implies usage before running an evaluation ('before running it'), providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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