get_pricing_info

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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds behavior annotations don't carry: this is static embedded knowledge, makes no API call, and consumes no credits. It additionally discloses the caveat that prices may change and routes users to the live pricing page, which is exactly the trust/compliance context an agent needs.

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 purpose, then usage, then caveat — a sensible order. Slightly padded by re-listing all eight enum values that the schema already defines, but every sentence carries actionable content.

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 two-optional-param, no-output-schema read tool this is largely sufficient: it describes what each section returns conceptually and how filtering narrows results. It stops short of describing the response shape (e.g. whether rows are objects or prose), which is the only real gap.

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% and both parameters are documented there, so the description is largely restating the enum list and the modelFilter substring rule. It does clarify the coupling between `modelFilter` and `section="models"`, but that is marginal value above the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Return Convocore pricing information") and enumerates exactly what content it covers: plans, add-ons, voice/chat cost rules of thumb, credit conversions, per-model token prices. No sibling tool competes for this purpose, so an agent can route here unambiguously.

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?

Explains how to narrow output via `section` and when to use `modelFilter` (only when section="models"). It also states the tool is static knowledge that does not hit the API or consume credits, plus a follow-up rule to point users at the live pricing URL. It lacks an explicit "use this when the user asks about cost" trigger sentence, but the context is clear.

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