estimate_cost

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

Since annotations are absent, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: deterministic computation, no LLM/network/API calls, works offline, and does not deploy. This transparency goes well beyond minimal requirements.

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 structured with clear sections (overview, return info, determinism, usage, behavior). Every sentence adds value; no fluff. Well front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (nested spec_json, pricing tiers), the description covers return structure, determinism, offline operation, and usage boundaries. No output schema is present, but the description describes the output comprehensively, making it complete for agent understanding.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter coverage, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds meaningful context: explains pricing resolution via a bundled SQLite catalog with formula dispatch and fallback, and describes the pricing tier multiplier values, which adds value beyond schema alone.

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 'Estimate the monthly cloud bill for an architecture spec,' specifying the verb (estimate) and resource (monthly cloud bill). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming `compare_provider_costs` and `compare_providers` as alternatives for multi-provider scenarios.

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 a clear 'When to use' section stating the tool is for a single provider+tier combination, and explicitly names two sibling tools for multi-provider comparisons, offering both inclusion and exclusion criteria.

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