estimate_compute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the return value (offer link) and instructs the agent to present it as a confirmation step. However, it does not mention side effects, whether the operation is read-only, or if it creates a quote/reservation. This is a moderate gap for a tool that leads to purchase actions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence meaningfully contributes. It avoids redundancy and communicates the tool's role and required agent behavior efficiently.

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?

The description conveys the tool's purpose and output but omits parameter usage entirely and lacks behavioral details like side effects or prerequisites. Although an output schema exists, the input side is severely underdescribed; agents would not know what workload information to collect or how to populate the four parameters, making the description incomplete for correct invocation.

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% and the description does not mention any of the four parameters. The phrase 'described workload' implicitly points to the use_case parameter but does not name it or clarify how to fill components, expected_requests_per_minute, or expected_monthly_active_users. Agents receive no guidance on what values to provide, making effective invocation unlikely.

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 verb 'estimate' with a specific resource ('compute needed for a described workload') and a concrete output ('tailored PlugLayer offer link'). It distinguishes itself from sibling compute tools by positioning itself as the 'preferred first step' before purchasing/reserving compute, which is a clear differentiation.

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 states when to use this tool: 'preferred first step before telling the user to purchase, reserve, or add more compute.' It also gives a clear instruction on the next action ('present the returned link as the user's next confirmation step'), providing both when-to-use and post-invocation guidance.

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