estimate_cost

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly notes this is a read-only operation ('WITHOUT spending credits') and specifies the endpoint. However, it omits mentioning authentication requirements or any potential rate limits, which would add further transparency.

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 concise with four sentences, each adding value. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage context and a concrete example. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 presence of an output schema, the return shape is covered. The description includes usage context and an example, but lacks clarity on scope (all models? workspace-specific?) and doesn't mention the 'account' parameter. For a simple tool with one optional parameter, this is minimally adequate but has gaps.

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 single parameter 'account' has no description in the schema (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain its purpose or expected values. Since the description should compensate for this gap, the lack of parameter semantics is a notable weakness.

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 clearly states the tool provides a credit cost table per model/resolution/mode without spending credits, and even gives a concrete example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like unlimited_status by mentioning it should be checked first.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this before generating on credits' and 'Check `unlimited_status` first', providing clear when-to-use and prerequisite guidance. The alternative of checking unlimited status is mentioned, fulfilling the when-not-to-use hint.

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