estimate_capability

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses critical safety trait: 'without actually executing it' confirms read-only estimation. However, misses: return value structure (currency format? object?), cache behavior, validation scope (does it verify capability_id exists?), and whether estimates are binding or approximate.

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?

Optimal two-sentence structure: first sentence defines action and safety constraint; second provides usage context. No redundancy, tautology, or structural waste. 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?

With 100% schema coverage and clear purpose, core definition is adequate. However, lacks output semantics (critical for an estimate tool): no description of return format (numeric? object? currency units?), precision guarantees, or error conditions. Since no output_schema exists, description should compensate for these gaps.

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% (all 3 parameters documented), establishing baseline 3. Description mentions 'capability' generically but doesn't augment parameter semantics beyond schema definitions—no clarifying examples, constraints, or inter-parameter relationships (e.g., when provider affects credential_mode).

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?

Excellent specificity: 'Get cost estimate for executing a capability' clearly defines the verb (get cost estimate), resource (capability), and distinguishes from sibling 'execute_capability' via 'without actually executing it.' Also differentiates from 'check_balance' (funds) and 'budget' (limit management).

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?

Provides explicit temporal guidance: 'Use before expensive operations or when building cost-aware workflows.' Clearly signals intent for pre-flight cost checks. Lacks explicit 'when NOT to use' or named alternative comparisons (e.g., vs. 'execute_capability'), but context is clear enough for selection.

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