cost_per_request

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a pure calculation with no side effects but never states that explicitly, and it doesn't disclose the return shape (e.g., whether it returns just the per-request figure or also totals). It does add useful unit context ('dollars', 'fully loaded').

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core computation and then the input semantics in the order the schema requires. No filler or repetition.

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 small arithmetic tool with no output schema, the definition covers inputs well, but it never says what exactly comes back (a single number? a breakdown?) nor how it relates to compare_lanes. The output phrase is descriptive prose rather than a promise about the response.

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 only 40%, but the description compensates by defining mode values and clarifying 'months' ('how long the work stays alive') and 'requests' ('discrete work items you expect to submit'). 'rate' and 'name' are covered by the schema; the split leaves nothing undocumented between the two sources.

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?

States a specific computation ('price one way of paying for software work as total cost per delivered request') with a clear verb and output quantity. It doesn't reference the sibling compare_lanes, so an agent must infer the distinction (single-lane pricing vs. comparison) from name alone.

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 mode enumeration effectively tells the agent which pricing scenario each value covers, and 'months'/'requests' are explained. However, there is no guidance on when to pick this tool over compare_lanes, nor any stated prerequisites or typical workflow position.

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