estimate_archive_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation is pre-commitment and returns an itemized estimate, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication, or other potential behaviors beyond the fact that it is not a binding commitment.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action ('Returns itemized pricing'), and every word earns its place. The first sentence describes the function, the second provides usage guidance. No unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (nested aoi object, 3 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, key inputs, and when to use it. It could additionally describe the output structure or potential limitations, but the existing information is reasonably complete for a pricing estimate tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description merely mentions 'scene, AOI, resolution' in the text, which adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 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 returns itemized pricing for an archive order with explicit parameters (scene, AOI, resolution). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'before commitment' and 'cost estimate' as opposed to a binding quote, making its role unique.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to give the user a cost estimate before generating a binding quote,' which gives clear context for when to use it. It implies exclusion of binding quotes, though it does not name the alternative tool (e.g., quote_archive_order) directly.

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