input_cost_calculator

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states the tool calculates and compares costs, but does not clarify whether it is a read-only operation, what inputs are needed, or any limitations of the DEMO version.

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 very short and front-loaded with the primary purpose, but the trailing 'DEMO' adds unnecessary noise without explanation. It is concise but lacks detail.

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?

The tool is a simple calculator with two parameters and an output schema, yet the description omits any operational context, such as how to interpret results, what crops are supported, or how acreage affects the calculation. This is inadequate for an agent to use it correctly without additional inference.

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 minimal meaning: it indicates the domain (Kenya farm inputs) but does not elaborate on the 'crop' or 'acreage' parameters. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this is insufficient for an agent to know what values to provide.

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 identifies the tool as a cost calculator and comparison for Kenya farm inputs, using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on calendars, guides, and alerts.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the siblings. The description does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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