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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds useful context beyond them: it discloses that the estimate is in EUR, includes price_usdc when USDC is enabled, and returns user account details for linked robots. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but it materially enriches the behavioral picture.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The primary pricing purpose is front-loaded, followed by the conditional account-information behavior.

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 carries return-value burden and does a good job listing the key outputs: EUR price, optional USDC price, and account-specific details for linked robots. It stops short of describing exact response fields or edge cases, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the main results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by indicating that robot_key determines whether user-specific account information appears. It also clarifies that duration_minutes represents recording length, reinforcing what the schema already says.

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 a specific action and resource: pricing a transcription for a recording of a given length. It also names the currency output and a conditional USDC price, making the tool's purpose clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as start_transcription or get_service_info.

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?

Usage is implied by the pricing framing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus alternatives or on prerequisites. The conditional note about linked robots adds context but does not establish when/when-not to use the tool.

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