get_pricing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers: 'Static data, no network call' explicitly declares the behavioral contract, alerting the agent that no side effects or costs are involved. It also discloses return semantics ('Returns how_an_agent_buys') and reveals the purchase-side behavior requiring external payment ('buy_dossier opens a Stripe Checkout, a human... pays, claim_dossier mints the access token').

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?

Though long, the description front-loads the key purpose first, then organizes information in digestible parentheticals and enumerations without redundancy. Every element — tiers, discounts, flow, edge case, and behavioral flag — earns its place; the final 'Static data, no network call — check it before recommending a purchase' is a dense, purposeful closer with no wasted words.

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's simplicity (0 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete: it covers all pricing products, describes the full order-of-operations among siblings, handles the human-less edge case, and flags its read-only network-free nature. There are no gaps an agent would need clarified to use this appropriately when recommending a purchase.

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 has zero parameters with 100% trivial schema coverage, so per the rubric baseline is 4. The description enhances this by specifying what the return payload contains (pricing tiers per product line, discounts, and the purchase flow walkthrough), going beyond the bare schema by describing the data an agent would consume. No parameter documentation burden exists here.

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 opening clause, 'WhiteIntel's price list plus the exact machine flow for buying access,' uses a specific verb-plus-resource phrasing that unmistakably identifies what the tool returns. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying this is static reference data explaining the purchase flow rather than the buying action itself — the description explicitly differentiates from buy_dossier, claim_dossier, get_dossier, and get_payment_link.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with 'check it before recommending a purchase' and walks through the full purchase pipeline, including an alternative with a conditional discriminator: 'Step 0 of that list covers the case with no human present: get_payment_link returns permanent Stripe links you can hand over instead.' It even notes the metered API tier and the no-human-present edge case, giving the agent a decision map of when each sibling applies.

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