verify_savings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the state change (acted_on to verified) and savings recording. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if verification fails. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, with two sentences covering the main action and a list of examples. It is front-loaded with the key behavior and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core functionality and state transition. However, it does not describe the return value or what the user can expect as output. For a simple action, it is mostly complete but lacks output details.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. According to guidelines, zero parameters warrant a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter info because none exist, which is appropriate.

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 auto-verifies acted-on recommendations by checking if changes were implemented, specifically mentioning EC2 instance type changes. It moves recommendations from 'acted_on' to 'verified' status and records actual savings. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'mark_recommendation_acted_on' and 'get_savings_ledger.'

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 after recommendations are marked 'acted_on' but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool. It lacks guidance on alternatives or prerequisites. The examples provide general context but no explicit when-to-use criteria.

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