calculate_shoot_budget

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the tool handles tax, contingency, category totals, and variances, which reveals aggregation behavior. However, it doesn't disclose what the return value looks like, whether totals are computed in multiple currencies, or how budgetCap affects the result.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core action and outputs. Efficient for its length but not verbose enough to cover critical param semantics.

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?

This is a complex calculation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, nested line objects, multiple cost types (unitCost, actualCost), status enums, and no output schema or annotations. The description lists what it calculates but doesn't explain how lines compose costs, what 'committed' vs 'actual' means for computation, or what the varied outputs look like. For this complexity level, the description is under-specified.

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 for all 5 parameters. The description mentions tax, contingency, and category totals, which maps to taxRatePercent, contingencyPercent, and category fields indirectly. But it provides no guidance on lines structure, currency handling, budgetCap semantics, or the relationship between unitCost, actualCost, and status. The description barely adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Calculate') and names the resource (photoxhoot costs) with specific outputs (estimated, committed, actual costs; tax, contingency, category totals, variances). It's clear but doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings since no sibling directly overlaps with budget calculation.

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?

No context on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools are all photography/location planning tools (get_weather, plan_route, etc.), and while calculate_shoot_budget is clearly distinct in domain, the description doesn't state when to invoke it, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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