get_price

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is free/no-charge, it does not execute the run, and the estimated cost depends on the provided inputs. It does not explicitly describe response shape or potential edge cases, but for a pricing-estimate tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core function: estimate cost before executing, no charge. Every sentence adds actionable value without repetition or unnecessary detail.

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 simple parameter surface and no output schema, the description covers the main pieces needed to invoke the tool correctly: what it returns conceptually, when it runs, whether it charges, and how inputs affect it. A bit more detail on the output format would make it even stronger.

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 already high, with model and input clearly described. The description enriches parameter understanding by explaining that input should mirror run_model inputs and that duration/resolution-style values can affect pricing, which is useful semantic context.

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: estimate the cost of a run before executing it, and explicitly notes there is no charge. It is clearly distinguished from run_model by describing it as the pre-execution cost-estimation step that provides the same inputs.

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 strong usage guidance by instructing users to provide the same input they would pass to run_model and mentions that pricing often depends on input values. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the 'before executing it' framing makes the intended use clear.

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