get_cost_estimate

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. It does convey that this is a query operation ('查') and that it is free ('免费'), both useful behavioral traits. It does not disclose return format, error behavior, or whether the estimate is approximate or cached, but it is not misleading.

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 short, purposeful sentences. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the free-of-charge note appears without any redundant elaboration. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description provides the core purpose, scope, and a useful cost trait. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits the return value shape and does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as get_budget_status. It is minimally viable but leaves some inference up to the agent.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the sole parameter. It refers to '一部剧' (a drama), which maps reasonably to the required drama_id, but it never explicitly explains that drama_id identifies the target drama or how it should be provided. The single, self-descriptive integer parameter makes the gap modest.

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 uses the verb '查' (query) and clearly identifies the resource as '一部剧的整体成本预估(点数)' (a drama's overall cost estimate in points). It is specific and immediately understandable. However, it does not reference or differentiate from sibling tools like get_budget_status, so an agent cannot be certain how it differs from related tools.

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 only usage hint is '免费' (free), which may help an agent decide to prefer this tool over paid alternatives. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are mentioned. The intended use can be inferred but is not directly stated.

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