get_cost_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Query' (implying a read operation) but does not disclose return format, data scope, cost implications, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 with no filler, achieving good conciseness. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices informative content, though it does front-load the core purpose effectively.

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 tool's simplicity and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the history records include, how the 'window' parameter behaves, or what 'include_outliers' does, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has two parameters ('window' and 'include_outliers') with no descriptions, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain or even mention these parameters, leaving their meaning and valid values completely undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb 'Query' and identifies the resource as 'historical cost estimation records and actuals.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'estimate_cost' (which estimates) and 'report_step_cost' (which reports individual costs), positioning this as the tool for historical queries.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer its role from the name alone.

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