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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that no auth is required, which is a useful behavioral detail, and specifies input constraints. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid input, error behavior, or response structure. These gaps are expected for a simple estimate tool, but it does not fully compensate for missing 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?

The description is two concise sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and no extraneous content. Every word adds value, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 has only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable baseline. However, it fails to clarify the relationship between 'file path' and 'sample_id' (which is not in the schema) and does not describe the output format. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the need for more detail, which is only partially met.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'file path or sample_id', but the schema only lists 'filepath' and 'outputFormat' as required properties, creating a discrepancy about sample_id. The description does not explain the 'outputFormat' parameter or its possible values, leaving the agent with ambiguous parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Estimate cost and latency for parsing a document.' This gives a specific verb and resource, and mentions accepted inputs (file path or sample_id). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'estimate', leaving some ambiguity about when to choose which.

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 implies usage when cost/latency estimation for parsing is needed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'estimate' or 'mcpParse'. It mentions acceptable input types (file path or sample_id) but lacks any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to siblings.

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