revisar_free_tier

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses limitations: does not call Cost Explorer, usage can be estimated/delayed/absent, and IAM restrictions. This provides good behavioral context.

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 focused with a clear opening sentence and brief additional details. It could be slightly more concise but is not verbose.

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 description covers purpose and limitations but omits parameter details. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but the lack of parameter explanation is a gap.

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 0%, yet the description does not explain any of the three parameters (services, max_pages, include_forecast). The agent only has parameter names and types, lacking meaning beyond that.

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 reviews account-plan and Free Tier usage without querying billed costs, using specific AWS APIs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like consultar_costes_aws by explicitly avoiding Cost Explorer.

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 when to use (free tier monitoring, not billed costs) and what it does not do (prove free, guarantee eligibility). It lacks explicit alternatives but context with sibling tools makes it clear.

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