get_storage_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns a pricing summary by tier, but does not provide additional behavioral context such as rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. With annotations covering safety, the description adds moderate value.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.

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 the simple input (one required parameter) and annotations indicating a safe read operation, the description sufficiently covers the tool's functionality. However, since there is no output schema, a hint about the structure of the pricing summary (e.g., per-provider breakdown) would improve completeness. Still, it is adequately complete.

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 100% with one parameter 'sizeGB' described. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the parameter role. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already adequately documents the parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get', resource 'storage pricing summary', and specifies the tiers (hot, cool, cold, archive) and scope 'for all providers'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'compare_storage' that may focus on comparison rather than summary.

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?

Usage context is implied (for getting a pricing summary by tier), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_storage' or 'get_provider_details'. No when-not or exclusions are mentioned.

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