calculate_database_cost

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pricing data freshness, estimation accuracy, or that output is a numeric cost). It does not contradict annotations.

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 but lacks any structure or elaboration. It omits useful details like output format or parameter roles. While not verbose, the brevity sacrifices completeness.

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 and only 40% parameter coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not state what the tool returns (e.g., monthly cost, formatted number) or how to interpret results, leaving significant gaps for a user unfamiliar with OCI pricing.

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 only 40%, with 3 parameters undocumented. The description does not explain any parameters or provide context beyond 'specific configuration'. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving users unclear about required inputs.

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 'Calculate database cost for a specific configuration' clearly states the action and resource (calculate database cost). However, it lacks specificity to differentiate from many sibling tools like 'calculate_kubernetes_cost' or 'calculate_multicloud_database_cost'. A more precise description listing supported database types would improve clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 40+ sibling tools including other calculate and compare options, users are left to infer appropriate usage. No 'when not to use' or alternative tool references are included.

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