pricing_unit_economics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the side effect (writes generated blocks into store/pricing.md) and the data source (latest backend/eval/results). It does not say whether existing pricing.md content is overwritten or merged, nor any permission or prerequisite needs, so coverage is partial.

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?

It is a single dense run-on sentence packed with parentheticals and internal jargon (spec.ai.model, ASC/RC layout), so the core action is front-loaded but the parse cost is high. Information density is good; readability and structure are weak.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the write target is named. But with zero schema coverage and no annotations, an agent still lacks the meaning of apple_cut, the overwrite semantics of store/pricing.md, and any guidance on choosing this over aso_unit_economics.

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% and 4 parameters exist, so the description must compensate. It explains the role of cost_photo/cost_text as explicit cost overrides versus the measured default, which is genuinely useful, but apple_cut and app_dir are never explained in the text.

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?

States a specific computation (unit economics from measured AI cost per call times usage profiles) and a specific output artifact (generated blocks of store/pricing.md), so the agent knows what it does. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling aso_unit_economics, which sounds like an overlapping concern, so it falls short of a 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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The clause 'or explicit cost_photo/cost_text' hints at input selection but not at task selection, and the presence of aso_unit_economics makes the missing routing guidance a real gap.

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