get_resource_cost_breakdown_aws

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it queries CUR via Athena, lists all parameters with defaults, and indicates it's a read operation. Could mention data latency or Athena query costs, but overall transparent.

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?

Well-structured: one-sentence purpose, bullet list of parameters, then examples. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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?

Description covers purpose, parameters, and behavioral expectations. Missing output schema is compensated by mentioning returned cost components. Could explicitly list output fields, but adequate for a data retrieval tool with clear inputs.

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 0%, but the description's Args section explains each parameter comprehensively: start_date, end_date, service, account_id, min_cost_usd, limit including defaults and ISO date format. This adds significant meaning 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 it returns per-resource AWS cost detail from CUR via Athena, listing specific cost components (unblended, on-demand equivalent, effective savings). This differentiates from sibling tools like get_costs_by_service, which likely provide aggregate service-level 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 prerequisites (CUR delivery to S3, Athena database, Team plan feature) and provides example queries. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this vs. alternatives like get_costs_by_service 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.