Get model pricing

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

Annotations already declare the tool as readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds minimal context ('pricing-only detail' and usage hint). It does not contradict annotations, but the annotations carry the main behavioral burden. The description adds some value but not much beyond what's already structured.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence clearly states the action, and the second adds usage guidance. Every sentence is meaningful and front-loaded.

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 simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description provides adequate context. It explains the purpose and usage boundaries. Annotations cover behavioral traits. A minor gap is that it doesn't describe the return format or example output, but that may be inferred from 'pricing-only detail'. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 one parameter 'model' with a brief description 'The model ID'. Schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add any additional semantics or formatting details for the parameter, so it neither harms nor improves beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves pricing-only detail for one model. It specifies 'pricing-only detail' and distinguishes its use for price explanation, not for non-chat request construction. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_pricing', which could cause confusion.

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 usage guidance: 'Use this endpoint for price explanation, not for non-chat request construction.' It tells when to use (price explanation) and when not to (non-chat request construction), but it does not mention alternatives or compare to other pricing tools.

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