get_estimated_cost

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, date format expectations, or whether parameters are mutually exclusive. Minimal beyond purpose.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the action and resource. No superfluous words; every phrase 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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain date format, optionality, or return structure, leaving agents underinformed for correct invocation.

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 description adds meaning only for the 'view' parameter by listing possible values ('sub_org, summary'), but provides no information about the four date parameters despite 0% schema coverage. Leaves agents guessing about formats and requiredness.

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 retrieves estimated cost data and mentions filtering by date range and view type. It distinguishes from siblings like get_hourly_usage by focusing on cost estimates, but does not explicitly differentiate from list_cost_budgets.

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?

Only provides vague guidance ('useful for cost monitoring and budget planning'). No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to alternatives like get_hourly_usage or list_cost_budgets.

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