get_service_cost

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses name resolution behavior and handling of ambiguous names, but does not mention error conditions, response format, or prerequisites (e.g., permissions, rate limits). Partial transparency, but gaps remain.

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: concise intro, name resolution details, ambiguity handling, parameter list, and examples. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return value structure, but it does not. The tool has 5 parameters and moderate complexity; the description covers purpose and parameters well but lacks information on response format, error handling, or expected results, leaving some incompleteness.

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 adds meaning for all 5 parameters: explains service_name accepts short/full names, provider auto-detects or accepts 'aws'/'azure'/'gcp', start_date/end_date defaults and ISO format, granularity values. This goes beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 cost breakdown for any named cloud service on AWS, Azure, or GCP.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling cost tools like get_costs_by_service by emphasizing per-service breakdown and automatic name resolution.

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 context (when you want cost for a specific service) but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives from the sibling list. Examples hint at use cases but lack explicit guidance on trade-offs with similar tools.

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