glm_compare_costs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and return format, but does not reveal whether it uses current pricing data, makes network calls, requires authentication, or has any side effects. This minimal information does not sufficiently disclose behavioral traits.

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 and well-structured, with a clear separation into purpose, arguments, and returns. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no redundant or filler text.

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?

For a simple comparison tool, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and return format. It lacks details about pricing sources or currency, but given that an output schema exists and the tool is straightforward, it provides sufficient context to understand how to invoke it. Missing usage guidance is already scored separately.

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 schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds one-line explanations for each parameter: 'Input tokens to compare' and 'Output tokens to compare.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's titles and defaults, clarifying the role of each token count.

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 'Compare costs between Claude and GLM' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like glm_ask or glm_summarize. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The verb 'compare costs' implies usage for cost comparison, but the description does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, making the usage implied rather than explicit.

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