Seedance 3.0

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so reasonably: it discloses that this is a pure lookup returning a static URL and explicitly disclaims live pricing retrieval and checkout side effects. It omits any note on auth requirements or what happens for unknown products, but for a zero-param, side-effect-free getter the disclosed traits are the relevant ones.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the return value and followed by the scope exclusions. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating that the return is a public pricing page URL. It does not mention behavior when the product or page is unavailable, which is a minor gap for such a simple tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to clarify, and it correctly does not invent parameter behavior.

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: 'Return the public pricing page URL for Seedance 3.0.' The behavior is unambiguous and distinguishable from a data-fetching tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_product_info, so it falls short of a 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?

The line 'Does not fetch live prices or create checkout' sets clear negative boundaries, telling the agent when this tool is unsuitable and steering it away from expecting price data or a purchase flow. No sibling alternative is named, so it is not a full when/when-not routing statement.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: this call is a pure read of informational content that performs no generation or other side effect. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, or caching behavior, but for a zero-parameter read tool those are minor.

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?

A single sentence with the payload front-loaded and the parenthetical caveat placed at the end. Every clause earns its place; nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description is the only signal about return content, and "public product information" stays fairly generic about which fields come back. For a no-parameter informational tool this is nearly sufficient, with only the shape of the response left to discover.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 4 applies; the described scope (public product info for a named product) is consistent with an argument-free call.

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 ("Return") and resource ("public product information for Seedance 3.0 at seedance30.com"), plus an explicit scope marker that it is informational only. It does not differentiate itself from the siblings get_pricing_url and list_capabilities, which overlap in the same informational space.

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 exclusion "does not generate video" gives a useful guardrail but is not aimed at any available alternative tool. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over get_pricing_url or list_capabilities, leaving the choice to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the read-only, informational nature ('Informational only') and that the content is sourced from the public site. It says nothing about return format or freshness/latency, but the tool is side-effect-free and zero-param, so the remaining risk is low.

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?

Two short sentences with the scope front-loaded and no filler; the enumerated capability areas are the highest-value content and appear early. The word 'Honest' is slightly editorial, but it usefully signals the summary is not marketing copy.

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 zero-parameter, side-effect-free informational tool with no output schema, the description says enough to call it correctly: what domain, what content, and that it is informational. The only missing piece is the boundary against the sibling get_product_info.

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?

The schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; 4 is the baseline for a parameterless tool. The enumerated topics (text-to-video, image-to-video, audio) usefully preview what the response covers.

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 clear resource (Seedance 3.0 capabilities) and enumerates the covered areas (text-to-video, image-to-video, audio), so an agent knows exactly what content comes back. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with sibling get_product_info, which could plausibly also describe capabilities.

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?

'Informational only' weakly implies this is a non-action lookup, but the description never states when to call this instead of get_product_info or get_pricing_url. No preconditions or exclusions are given, so the agent must infer routing from tool names alone.

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