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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: selecting a version does not lock Price, and new Runs are admitted at the current Price. It omits auth requirements and any rate-limit or result-caching behavior, but the pricing/version decoupling is valuable context beyond structured data.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then workflow guidance, then the docs link. Every sentence carries information, though it is fairly dense and the pricing caveat could be tightened slightly.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what the response contains (schema, price clauses, endpoint_version, run mode, timeout) and how to use it downstream. Combined with the read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 carry parameter meaning. It explains the workflow role of task_id (link the inspection to the same piece of work) and endpoint_version (what to pass on to run), but provider and endpoint receive no clarification beyond their regex patterns, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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 ('Get') and resource ('one endpoint's execution contract') and enumerates exactly what comes back: input schema, price with charge clauses, endpoint_version, run mode and timeout. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like run, search, and runs_get without opening any schema.

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 an explicit precondition ('Always inspect before the first run of an endpoint'), tells the agent what to do with the result ('pass the endpoint_version you saw to run'), and explains how to correlate with the search step via task_id. When-to-use and the handoff to run are both spelled out.

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