HALOWERK: Preis vorab

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds substantial behavioral context: it makes no payment, reports the ceiling rather than minimum for tiered prices, and specifies which amount the budget check uses. These are non-obvious traits that an agent would not know from annotations alone.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds unique value: cost return, budget check, free/no payment, and ceiling behavior. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (cost, budget check amount, pass/fail) and key constraints (free, ceiling). The tool is simple with two params and annotations cover safety; the description is complete for an agent to use it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add further parameter-level detail; it only mentions 'planned call' and 'tiered prices,' which are behavioral rather than param-specific. The schema already documents werkzeug and koerper adequately.

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 returns planned call cost, the budget check amount, and pass/fail status against per-call cap and session budget. It uses a specific verb 'Returns' and resource, and distinguishes itself by noting it is free and reports the ceiling for tiered prices, separating it from siblings like cost_estimate.

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 gives clear context for use: checking cost and budget feasibility before making a call. It implies alternatives by stating 'Free — makes no payment,' but it does not explicitly name when not to use it or mention sibling tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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