get_top_cost_drivers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, data aggregation behavior, or return format. The transparency is minimal.

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 concise, at about 6 lines plus examples. It front-loads the purpose, then lists arguments efficiently. The examples add value but are not essential. It earns a 4 for being streamlined.

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?

All 6 parameters are explained, but there is no description of the output format or return fields, which is a gap since no output schema exists. The examples partially compensate by suggesting the tool returns a list of services with costs, but not explicitly.

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?

The schema has 0% parameter description coverage (6 params, none described), so the description compensates well. It explains each parameter's meaning, lists defaults (e.g., limit=10, start_date=30 days ago), and indicates types (ISO date, named account). However, it omits constraints like allowed values for category.

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 'the top N most expensive services across all configured providers', using a specific verb-resource pair. It differentiates from siblings like get_top_spending_accounts (which returns accounts) by focusing on 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?

Examples imply usage for cost driver inquiries, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It does not reference alternatives like get_costs_by_service, leaving the agent to infer context from the examples.

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