Review ordered generation batch

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description goes further by disclosing what the result hash binds (ordered inputs/lifecycle/store-IO/profile label/schemas/quotes) and the important caveat that unit pricing is neither final cost nor a spending cap. These are genuine behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The telegraphic, jargon-dense style ('Hash binds ordered exact inputs/...') borders on cryptic but each clause carries load-bearing meaning.

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 preview/validation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key behavioral facts an agent needs: it validates against current schemas, looks up unit pricing, and produces a hash over exact ordered inputs while performing no generation or writes. It is nearly complete, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents tasks, model_id, input, store_io, lifecycle and account. The description restates the parameter concepts the hash binds (ordered inputs, lifecycle, store-IO, profile label) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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: read-only schema validation plus native unit-pricing lookup for a batch of async jobs. The 'preview' framing (no generation, file write) is clear enough that an agent can tell it apart from submit_generation_batch, though the sibling is never named outright.

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 read-only/validation framing implies this is a dry-run to run before an actual submission, and the 'No generation, file write or key ownership validation' clause signals exclusions. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over submit_generation_batch or estimate_pricing, leaving the routing to inference.

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