get_estimated_cost

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read-like operation for cost data, but does not disclose idempotency, rate limits, or what happens on invalid input (e.g., malformed dates). The description is vague on side effects and safety.

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. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds context about use case. It is front-loaded and wastes no words.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the difference between start_month/end_month and start_date/end_date, how the view parameter values differ, or the structure of the returned cost data. The description leaves significant gaps for an agent to use the tool 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%, meaning the description adds no parameter-specific details. While it mentions 'date range and view type (sub_org, summary)', it does not map these to the five parameters (view, start_month, end_month, start_date, end_date) or explain their relationships. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple optional parameters.

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 for Datadog usage, with filtering by date range and view type. It specifies the resource (cost data) and actions (get, filter), but does not explicitly differentiate from related siblings like get_hourly_usage or get-usage.

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 mentions the tool is useful for cost monitoring and budget planning, providing some context. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like get_hourly_usage or get-usage, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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