get_cost_recommendation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'v224 API' detail, which provides minor version context. It doesn't describe return format or error behavior, but annotations cover the safety profile, so the description's additional value is limited.

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 a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Get a specific cost recommendation by ID') and includes the API version for context. Every word earns its place.

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 retrieval tool with one documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient. It doesn't describe the return format (no output schema exists), but given the simplicity and annotations, it is nearly complete. Minor gap: no mention of potential 404 errors or if the ID must exist.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter 'recommendation_id' as the ID to retrieve. The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: retrieving a specific cost recommendation by ID. It is concise and unambiguous, distinguishing it from the plural 'get_cost_recommendations' which likely lists recommendations. The mention of 'v224 API' adds specificity but is not essential for the core purpose.

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 when you have a specific recommendation ID and need its details, contrasting with 'get_cost_recommendations' for listing all. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling list provides context. Given the simple nature of the tool, this is adequate.

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