get_resource_costs

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

Annotations are entirely absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a backend dependency (Prometheus) and warns that estimates are approximate, which are genuinely useful traits beyond the schema. However, it does not describe return shape, whether this is a read-only operation, or any latency/cost implications of a broad namespace query. Without annotations, the description still leaves meaningful behavioral unknowns.

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 tight and well-structured: one purpose sentence, one dependency/accuracy note, and a compact two-item Args list. Every sentence contributes operational information, and the most important scoping detail is front-loaded. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 two-parameter read-style tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential decisions an agent needs: what the tool returns, how to filter, what averaging window is allowed, and what caveats apply. It falls short only in not describing the response format or what 'optimization suggestions' actually look like, but the low parameter count and straightforward purpose make the remaining gap minor.

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 description adds value beyond the schema: it clarifies that namespace is optional and 'omit for all namespaces', which is not explicitly stated in the schema itself. It also adds a valid range for timeframe_minutes ('1-1440'), which the schema does not constrain. This gives an agent concrete usage guardrails that the JSON schema alone would not provide.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('resource cost attribution'), and a scoping dimension ('by namespace'). It also adds a distinguishing output feature ('optimization suggestions'), which separates it from sibling history/compliance tools without needing to see their schemas.

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 gives helpful operational context ('Requires Prometheus backend', 'Cost estimates are approximate') and explains parameter usage, but it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_resource_compliance or get_resource_history. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, so the agent must infer the tool's role from its name and resource focus.

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