estimate_cost

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that it returns 'unknown' when catalogs cannot support a reliable calculation and avoids a fixed pricing table, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, what response shape to expect, or other operational limits.

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 two sentences are front-loaded and contain no filler. It is appropriately terse, though its brevity becomes a liability for such a parameter-heavy tool.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. It mentions the unknown fallback but does not explain cost units, response format, or how the parameters affect the estimate.

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?

There are 10 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. Terms like 'type', 'model', 'count', 'duration', 'resolution', 'aspect_ratio', and the image/video-specific counts are left entirely undocumented.

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: 'Estima o custo' using OpenRouter metadata. The purpose is clear, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling generation tools or explicitly say it estimates image/video generation cost.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. At best, usage is implied by the sibling tools that generate images and videos, but the description itself does not route the agent.

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