AgentShare Price API

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it discloses that the tool is 'Safe to call without an API key when the deployment allows it,' which is critical for authentication behavior not covered by annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral context and usage guidelines in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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) and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behavioral context (API key safety). A minor gap is the lack of output format details, but with annotations providing safety info, this is acceptable.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, as none exist, and instead focuses on the tool's purpose and usage, which is efficient and correct for this case.

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 with specific verbs ('return API capabilities, rate limits, and integration hints') and resources ('Service metadata'), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on pricing/offers. It explicitly answers 'what can this API do?' which establishes its unique role.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use for onboarding, capability checks, or answering 'what can this API do?' before calling paid tools.' This gives clear when-to-use scenarios and implies an alternative (calling paid tools) without redundancy.

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