get_ri_waste_detail

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses data source dependency (CUR via Athena) and plan access, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, or whether the tool modifies data. The read-only nature is implied but not guaranteed.

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 well-structured with a brief purpose statement, a list of arguments with defaults, and example queries. It is concise without extraneous content, though the examples could be more specific to the output format.

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 has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter details, and use cases. However, it does not describe the return value structure or pagination, which would be helpful for an agent interpreting results.

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 lacks parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the tool description provides clear semantics for all three parameters: start_date, end_date (ISO format, defaults), and min_waste_usd (default $10). This adds significant value beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 identifies wasted Reserved Instance spend from CUR RIFee line items, differentiating it from siblings like audit_aws_waste or get_commitment_analysis. It specifies the resource (RIs) and the actionable metric (wasted dollars).

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 mentions prerequisites (CUR via Athena) and plan restriction (Team plan feature), and provides example queries that guide appropriate use. However, it does not contrast with similar tools like get_savings_plan_waste or advise when not to use it.

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