Preview the server-authoritative AOI price for a cart of archive captures.

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

The description adds minimal behavioral information beyond annotations. 'Server-authoritative' hints at reliability, but it does not explain authentication requirements (x-api-key), idempotency (false), or error states. The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundancy. However, it may be overly terse given the tool's complexity, sacrificing clarity for brevity.

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 that the tool has 3 parameters (none required) and an output schema, the description fails to cover input structure, authentication, or usage scenario. The agent lacks context to correctly invoke the tool, especially regarding the 'captures' parameter.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description should explain parameters but does not. It mentions 'cart of archive captures' but provides no details on the 'captures' array format, 'x-api-key' requirement, or 'splitByDate' meaning. This leaves the agent guessing.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 implied usage context through the name and sibling tools, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling estimate tools.

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