quick_estimate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds 'instant cost comparison', which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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 of 12 words, front-loaded with the core action 'Get instant cost comparison'. No unnecessary words; every word contributes to clarity.

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 has one parameter with an enum and no output schema. The description explains the input scope (presets) but lacks details about the output format, such as whether cost comparisons are monthly/hourly, absolute/relative, or displayed as numbers/charts. For a quick estimate tool, this is acceptable but not fully 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 coverage is 100%: the parameter 'preset' has a schema description 'Deployment preset name'. The tool description adds context ('common deployment presets including GPU workloads'), which hints at relevant enum values but adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 provides 'instant cost comparison for common deployment presets', with a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('cost comparison'), and scope including GPU workloads. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'compare_compute' or 'list_presets'.

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 use for quick cost estimates of presets but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like 'calculate_workload_cost' or 'compare_compute'. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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