get_pricing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using 'Get', but doesn't explicitly state safety aspects like whether it's non-destructive or if it requires authentication. The inclusion of specific price examples adds some context, but key behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, error handling) are missing, making it adequate but with gaps.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and includes key pricing details. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague language, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for a simple pricing lookup. It explains what the tool returns (pricing tiers with examples) but lacks information on output format or error cases. With no structured fields to rely on, it meets minimum viability but could be more comprehensive.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the pricing logic (based on lifetime top-up amount) and providing example price ranges for USA and International, which goes beyond the empty schema. This compensates well, though it's not a perfect 5 as it could include more details like currency or update frequency.

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: retrieving postcard pricing tiers based on lifetime top-up amount, with specific price examples for USA and International. It uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'postcard pricing tiers', making the action and target explicit. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'check_balance' or 'send_postcard', which prevents a score of 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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions pricing tiers but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to siblings like 'check_balance' (which might relate to costs) or 'send_postcard' (which might involve pricing). This lack of contextual usage information results in a low score.

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