estimate_cost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the cost ('$0.18') but doesn't specify if this is per image, per request, or how it varies with parameters. No information about rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when invoked is provided.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the cost information ('Cost: $0.18') could be better integrated or explained, making it slightly less than perfectly structured.

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?

For a cost estimation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., cost breakdown, total estimate) or how the cost calculation works with the parameters, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: estimating cost before image generation execution. It specifies the resource (image generation) and verb (estimate cost), but doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'estimate_music_cost' or 'estimate_video_cost' beyond mentioning 'image' in the description.

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 context ('before executing') suggesting this should be used prior to actual generation, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'generate_image' or provide exclusion criteria. The context is implied rather than explicitly defined.

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