get_commitment_utilization

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions one behavioral trait – returning an explanatory message when no commitments exist – which is useful. However, it does not cover other behaviors like data granularity handling, boundary effects, authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. It is not misleading, but only partially transparent.

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 sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the edge-case note is placed second. It is efficient and easy to consume, though slightly longer than necessary.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 3 enums, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and one edge case but omits usage guidance, parameter clarification for granularity, and any detail on the return structure. It is adequate for basic selection but not fully complete for correct invocation without additional schema inspection.

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 description coverage is low (40%), and the description adds only minimal parameter context. It names the commitment types (savings_plans, reservations) which maps to the commitment_type enum, and mentions utilization vs coverage which echoes the report field. But it does not explain granularity or the start/end date format beyond the schema, and it fails to compensate for the 60% of parameters lacking schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('Get'), a precise resource ('Savings Plans or Reserved Instance utilization and coverage'), and a time-bound scope. It clearly differentiates from siblings like cost/usage/forecast/anomalies/budgets/tags tools, so an agent can tell what this tool addresses without opening the schema.

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 implies the tool is for commitment utilization/coverage tracking, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives like get_cost_and_usage or get_cost_forecast. No exclusions or when-not-to-use context is provided, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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