get_textract_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 discloses that the tool performs read-only analysis of Textract costs and flags savings opportunities. There is no mention of destructive actions or side effects, which is appropriate for a cost-analysis 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 extremely concise: a two-line purpose, a line on benefits, and a bullet-point Args section. It is front-loaded with the main function, and every sentence adds value without repetition.

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?

For a cost-analysis tool with a moderate number of parameters and an output schema (indicated by context signals), the description fully covers the tool's purpose, inputs, and key benefit (up to 96% cost reduction). No additional information is necessary for the agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'days' (number of days to analyze, default 30) and 'account' (reserved for future multi-account support), providing meaning beyond the schema's default values.

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 analyzes AWS Textract costs by API type (sync vs async), which is a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling cost-analysis tools like get_bedrock_costs or get_databricks_costs, which target other services.

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 indicates the tool should be used to analyze Textract spend and identify cost-saving opportunities by flagging high-cost sync API usage where async alternatives can reduce costs. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.

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