compare_provider_costs

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses it's pure computation, no LLM/no network/no API costs, uses offline catalog, does not deploy. Adds clear behavioral context beyond schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then returns, then usage contrast, then behavioral note. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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?

Given parameter count (2) with full schema coverage, output schema exists, and no missing critical areas: returns are described, behavior clarified, limitations noted (no deploy, no API). Complete for a cost comparison tool.

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%. Description adds context that spec_json maps services to cross-cloud equivalents, but this is mostly reinforcing schema examples. Baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it compares monthly cost totals across cloud providers, and that it returns numeric summaries per provider. Distinguishes from sibling compare_providers by specifying this tool only returns costs, not architectures.

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?

Explicitly says to use for cost-focused provider selection. Contrasts with compare_providers (architectures vs. costs) and suggests workflow: call compare_providers first then estimate_cost, or call in parallel.

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