get_cost_report

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It adds that the cost report is 'estimated', hinting at non-exact values. However, it does not explicitly state that GET operations are read-only, nor does it discuss authentication, rate limits, or side effects.

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 very short and front-loaded, but the inclusion of 'model' without corresponding schema support introduces inaccuracy, undermining conciseness. The second sentence is redundant with the schema type.

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 (one optional parameter) and an output schema that may describe return values, the description still lacks context on what the cost report contains, how 'estimated' is defined, and typical use cases. It is incomplete for effective tool selection.

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 param descriptions are absent. The description merely restates the parameter name ('Optional project filter'), offering no additional semantics, such as required format, examples, or relationship to cost data.

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 states 'Get estimated cost report by model and project', clearly identifying the resource and action. However, it misleadingly mentions 'model' as a filter criterion, but the input schema only includes a project parameter, creating inconsistency and potential confusion.

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 siblings like 'get_stats' or 'export_chunks'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or alternatives, leaving the AI agent without decision-making support.

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