gc_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. The term 'circuit-breaker' hints at safety mechanisms (presumably blocking spend when ceilings are exceeded), but the description never explains important behaviors: what happens when a ceiling is exceeded, whether reset has side effects, what 'status' vs 'check' vs 'spend' actually do, or whether any action is destructive. The description lists actions but gives zero behavioral detail.

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 short (two sentences), which is efficient, but it reads as a compressed catalog dump—a list of action names plus a parenthetical referring to internal ticket references. The 'Story 3.3, AD-26' reference is meaningless to an external agent and the action enumeration repeats what the schema's action enum already communicates. It's under-specified rather than concise.

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 dispatch tool with 11 parameters and 7 distinct actions, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the circuit-breaker semantics (thresholds, what triggers a break), what each action returns, or how the tool integrates with the broader gc_cost/cost-management system. For a tool of this complexity, the description is substantially 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 coverage is 100%, so all 11 parameters have descriptions in the schema, which establishes a baseline of 3. However, the descriptions are terse parenthetical tags like '(for spend)' and '(for estimate)' that map parameters to actions but don't explain format, units beyond 'cents', or relationships between parameters (e.g., which combinations are valid for which actions). The description itself adds no parameter information beyond what's in 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 states 'Provider cost ceilings and circuit-breaker' which identifies the domain, and lists the available actions. However, it lacks a clear verb+resource statement of what the tool does as a whole—it's a dispatcher tool covering 7 distinct actions with no unifying operational sentence. The purpose is somewhat clear but relies on the action list rather than an explicit statement.

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 provides no guidance on WHEN to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not distinguish from siblings like gc_cash (cost-related), gc_control, or gc_capability. The mention of 'Story 3.3, AD-26' provides internal project context but offers no practical usage direction. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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