Spend history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the key trait: it is read-only. It also explains data provenance (estimates from running resources vs. invoices). However, it says nothing about whether refresh triggers recomputation, cost/latency, or how stale estimates can be.

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?

Very compact – a read-only marker followed by one information-dense sentence. Front-loaded with the safety trait and the core output, with no filler.

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?

A four-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and mostly undocumented parameters deserves more than one sentence. Return shape (per-month/per-project breakdown) and the meaning of refresh/workspace are left entirely to inference.

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 only 25% (just the 'demo' flag), and the description never addresses the months, refresh, or workspace parameters. It implies a monthly dimension but gives no syntax, defaults, or effect for any of the four inputs.

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?

States a specific resource and scope: estimated monthly and per-project spend derived from running resources, reconciled against invoices. It is clear what data the tool surfaces, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_pricing or infra_map.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives (e.g. get_pricing or infra_audit), nor any preconditions. The reference to the 'map's Spend tab' hints at context but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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