get-prompt-enhancer-cost

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that this is a GET read against `/api/v1/prompt-enhancer/cost` and that unenhanceable models yield 422/model_not_enhanceable. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and whether the underlying getCost call has side effects, but the key failure mode is surfaced.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the mechanics and error case. The SDK/endpoint internals are borderline noise for an agent but they are compact and do not obscure the primary statement.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the main error, but leaves the return shape ambiguous — 'token cost' could be a scalar or an object with input/output token counts. That ambiguity matters precisely because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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% and the single model_type parameter is already documented as required. The description's endpoint example shows model_type as a query parameter but adds no constraints, valid values, or format details beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Return the token cost of enhancing a prompt for a given model', which is clearly distinct from start-prompt-enhancement and get-prompt-enhancement-task. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is by implication rather than direct routing.

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?

Usage is implied — call this before enhancing to learn the cost — but the description never states when to use this versus start-prompt-enhancement or what the caller should do with the returned cost. The 422/model_not_enhanceable case is documented, which is a useful hint but not full usage guidance.

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