Arsenkin: batch estimate

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/no-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds beyond that with 'Cost: free, no provider call', which is genuine cost/latency context an agent can act on. It is thin but real added value over structured fields.

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 short clauses, fully front-loaded: purpose first, then sequencing, then cost. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining hole is the opaque `requests` payload, and the description does not compensate for the zero-coverage schema, so the definition is adequate but incomplete for a tool that consumes a batch.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema coverage and an unconstrained items schema (additionalProperties: true), so the schema describes essentially nothing about a request object. The description only says 'multi-request batch' and never explains what each element must contain, leaving the agent to guess the batch shape.

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 specific verbs and resource: 'Plan, coalesce and price a multi-request batch.' The batch scope plus the named sibling ('Use before `arsenkin_batch_prepare`') separates it from the single-request `arsenkin_estimate`. It stops short of an explicit contrast with that non-batch sibling, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Gives a clear sequencing rule ('Use before `arsenkin_batch_prepare`') and a cost cue ('free, no provider call') that tells the agent to call this first. It never names when not to use it or what the alternative is if the batch is rejected, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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