dewa_bill_estimate

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the result includes a housing-fee explanation and an electricity slab table, which is useful context. However, the season-dependent AC multiplier note lives in the schema, and nothing beyond that is disclosed about calculation basis or caveats.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the core resource and then lists the returned payload; no filler, no restatement 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?

With rich annotations, a full parameter schema, and an output schema covering the return shape, the description supplies what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. It is slightly thin on scope boundaries against neighbouring estimate tools, but nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so both parameters (season, unit_size) are already fully documented with their allowed values and defaults, including the summer AC multiplier note. Baseline 3 applies because the description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides for parameters.

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 names a specific resource and scope: the typical monthly DEWA bill for a given unit size, plus the returned components (housing-fee explanation, electricity slab table). An agent can distinguish it from generic cost tools like cost_of_living_overview. It stops short of naming any sibling it is not, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cost_of_living_overview, rent_estimate, or grocery_estimate, and no mention of preconditions or the season/unit-size defaults. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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