get_databricks_costs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses behavioral traits: two distinct data sources (API vs estimation), the dependency on DATABRICKS_ACCOUNT_ID, and that the returned spend is estimated. This is comprehensive for a simple cost retrieval 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?

Description is well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a bulleted list of what is returned, a sentence on the two computation methods, and an Args section. It is thorough but not overly verbose. Could be slightly more concise by integrating the method explanation.

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 no output schema, the description does not detail the return format (e.g., JSON structure, units). It covers the main output elements and parameter defaults, but omits error handling, prerequisites (e.g., Databricks connection), and response shape. For a tool of moderate complexity with 2 simple params, it is adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed parameter semantics: both start_date and end_date are ISO date strings with default values (30 days ago and today). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only defines them as nullable strings. No enums or nested objects.

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?

Description clearly states it returns Databricks workspace cost breakdown for a date range, listing included elements (total spend, by service type, per-cluster). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_databricks_dbu_breakdown or get_databricks_job_costs.

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?

Description mentions two computational methods depending on DATABRICKS_ACCOUNT_ID, providing context on when each is used. But it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to use get_databricks_costs vs get_databricks_cluster_efficiency).

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