storage_gateway_get_cost_analysis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'Smart identifier resolution' which is a useful behavioral trait, but it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, whether it hits external APIs, or what the cost analysis includes. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are clearly structured and easy to parse. It wastes no words, though the 'Returns' section is vague ('Detailed cost analysis and projections') and could be more specific without adding much length.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are partially covered by structured data. However, the description doesn't explain what 'cost analysis and projections' includes, whether it's a snapshot or time-series, or how the identifier resolution behaves in edge cases. For a read-only analysis tool with one parameter, this is adequate but leaves room for an agent to misunderstand the output's scope.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the single parameter 'gateway_identifier' as 'Gateway label or ID', which adds meaning beyond the bare schema type 'string'. However, it doesn't provide examples, format constraints, or how to disambiguate labels from IDs. With only one parameter, the description is adequate but not rich.

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's function: 'Get cost analysis and projections for a storage gateway.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like storage_gateway_get_gateway_status or storage_gateway_optimize_gateway_configuration. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'Smart identifier resolution: Use gateway label or ID.' This tells the agent what input to provide, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like storage_gateway_get_gateway_status or storage_gateway_optimize_gateway_configuration. There is no exclusion guidance, so it's adequate but not explicit.

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