get_pro_flash_cost

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses two important behavioral facts: calling this tool is free, and the returned cost is provisional rather than a final bill. This helps an agent understand the tool is a safe, non-mutating query.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the qualifiers 'provisional', 'Free', and 'split into' efficiently convey the essential behavior without 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, unit, sub-components, cost of calling, and estimate-vs-actual distinction. It lacks an explicit statement of the response format, which matters given there is no output schema, but the 'split into...' phrase partially describes the output structure.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are well documented with types, descriptions, and enums. The description adds a high-level cost structure ('first-image component' and 'v3 rotation component') but does not elaborate on individual parameter effects, so the schema remains the primary source of parameter meaning.

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 names a specific verb ('Estimate'), a concrete resource ('provisional cost of a Pro Flash operation'), and the unit ('generation units'). It also specifies the two cost components, which clearly distinguishes it from creation, capability, and job-status siblings.

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 gives clear context: this is a cost-estimation tool for Pro Flash operations, implying use before a Pro Flash job. The contrast between provisional estimate and actual billed usage provides additional usage context, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions.

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