estimate_cost

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

With no annotations, the description explains the calculation formula ('multiplies the unit retail price by the quantity and hours') and the special case for flat monthly rates, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not disclose other traits such as whether the estimate includes discounts, taxes, or if it is a read-only operation.

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 well-organized: a one-sentence purpose, a short formula explanation, a practical special-case note, and a bulleted parameter list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (7 parameters, multiple SKU/region combinations), the description covers the key inputs and usage nuances, including how to handle storage pricing. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described here. It is nearly complete, though it could mention that prices vary by region or that SKU matching may require precise naming.

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 substantial meaning to every parameter, including clear differentiation between arm_sku_name ('ARM SKU name for exact match') and sku_name ('SKU display name to narrow down'). It also explains the semantics of hours_per_month with a concrete example, which the schema alone does not provide. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 starts with 'Estimate monthly cost for an Azure service based on quantity and usage hours', which clearly states the tool's specific function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_prices by focusing on cost estimation rather than price lookup.

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 provides practical usage hints, such as 'For storage or data services priced per GB/month, set hours_per_month to 1', but it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or mention when to prefer this over search_prices, list_services, etc. The context is implied but not explicit.

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