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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is free, non-binding, does not reveal a wallet, and explains the hit/partial/miss tier semantics. This covers the essential behavioral traits for a pricing tool, though rate limits or auth are not mentioned.

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 concise and well-structured: four short sentences, each adding meaningful information—cost, purpose, tier semantics, and value interpretation. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The description comprehensively explains the return tiers (hit/partial/miss) without an output schema, and covers the tool's purpose and safety. Minor gaps exist around error handling or invalid inputs, but for a simple pricing tool, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, describing all four parameters with types and formats. The description adds little beyond 'one specific input,' so the schema already provides the necessary 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 purpose: it provides an indicative price and reuse tier for a specific input, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform actual operations. The title reinforces this as a cost-check tool.

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 before committing to an operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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