roamzy_estimate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool is purely informational, depends on country-specific rates, and must not be used as a sales gate. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second and third sentences deliver crucial usage constraints without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it both concise and well-structured.

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?

With an output schema, rich annotations, and a clear behavioral boundary (informational only), the description is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers what, when, and why-not, leaving no significant 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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), with examples. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond reinforcing the 'reference' nature, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given schema 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 clearly states the tool performs a reference calculation: estimating the USDT cost of a given MB volume at a country's rate. It uses a specific verb ('calculation') and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by noting it's informational and not a purchase gate. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('ONLY for informational queries') and when-not-to-use guidance ('DON'T use this to gate a purchase'), with the underlying rationale about the user's funding model. This is exemplary alternative/contextual direction for an agent.

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