get_cost_trends

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

Description explains what the tool does (retrieve cost trends) and parameters, but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond that. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, but it omits potential details like data recency, pagination, or permission requirements. Adequate for a read-only query tool.

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 concise with only essential information: one introductory sentence, a clear bullet list of parameters, and relevant examples. No redundant text, and structure is efficient.

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 simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the basics well. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., a list of dates/costs), which could be helpful for an agent to interpret results. Completeness is adequate but could be improved.

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 schema coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: provider, category (with allowed values 'cloud' or 'saas'), days (default 30), and granularity ('DAILY' or 'MONTHLY'). It also provides defaults and examples, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

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 returns cost trends over time broken down by day or month, using specific verbs and resource. Examples like 'Is our AWS spend trending up or down?' reinforce the purpose and distinguish it from sibling tools like get_cost_summary or get_cost_history.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While examples imply usage for trend analysis, there is no mention of when not to use it or comparison with sibling tools like get_cost_history or get_cost_summary.

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