get_estimate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add the read-only tier indicator ('tier: readonly-owner') which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe error behavior, what happens if the estimate doesn't exist, or any authentication/authorization nuances beyond the tier tag.

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?

Two concise sentences that convey the purpose, scope, endpoint mapping, and access tier. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler. Well-structured and immediately readable.

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?

For a single-resource read tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The tier tag and endpoint mapping provide useful context. The only gap is not explicitly distinguishing from list_estimates or describing the response format, but for a simple getter this is acceptable.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter (estimate_id). The description implies the ID identifies the estimate but doesn't explain how to obtain it (e.g., from list_estimates) or its format. With only one simple param, the gap is minimal but the description could still mention where the ID comes from.

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 (single estimate) and adds that it includes options. It maps to a specific endpoint (GET /estimates/{id}) for precise understanding. It's distinct from list_estimates, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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 it's for a single estimate (as opposed to list_estimates for collections) but doesn't explicitly state when to use it vs. list_estimates or other alternatives. The singular focus and resource name provide implicit context but no explicit exclusions.

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