vapi_market_estimated_price

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the estimate nature, single GET behavior, no auto-pagination, local row/size limits, truncation reporting, refusal of oversized records, and that forwarded filters are not guaranteed effective.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then adding one behavioral caveat per sentence. Every sentence contributes meaningful operational information without 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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers most non-obvious behaviors: request count, pagination, truncation, limits, and estimate semantics. It lacks precise output-shape details beyond minPrice, but that is a minor gap given the otherwise rich guidance.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain 'asset' and 'detailId', but it only restates their names. The PACKS/ALPHA note is about output formatting rather than parameter meanings, and no value formats, examples, or valid ranges are given.

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 sentence states a specific action ('Read estimated market prices') on a specific resource ('explicit asset and detailId'), and further clarifies this is an estimate rather than an executable quote. This clearly differentiates it from market_* and vapi_market_* siblings.

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 clear context: it is a read-only estimate, not an executable quote, and it performs one logical GET without auto-fetching continuation pages. It implies when to use it but does not name specific alternative tools for executable quotes or paginated reads.

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