infomaniak_get_swiss_backup_pricing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, indicating a safe read-only operation. The description adds a subtle behavioral nuance by mentioning two modes (read vs. calculate), but it does not elaborate on output format, pagination, or any other behaviors beyond what annotations imply. The minimal extra context is credited, but the burden is largely on the 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 a single, focused sentence that begins with the primary action ('Read Swiss Backup pricing') and adds the alternative mode concisely. There is no redundant wording, and every word contributes meaning.

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 vague query parameter schema and the dual read/calculate behavior, the description is insufficient for an agent to know exactly what to pass or what to expect. The presence of an output schema partially covers return values, but the description does not explain how to structure the 'query' object or when to set 'calculate' to true. More detail is needed for correct invocation.

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 must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It mentions 'query parameters' in relation to calculating a price, hinting that the 'query' object holds pricing inputs, but it does not list or explain specific keys, or clarify the exact role of the 'calculate' boolean. This is only slightly more informative than the bare schema.

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: reading Swiss Backup pricing or calculating a price from query parameters. It uses a specific verb ('Read'/'calculate') and resource ('Swiss Backup pricing'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage backups or retrieve backup details rather than pricing.

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 implies the tool is for pricing-related tasks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No comparison with sibling tools is provided, and there is no guidance on prerequisites or context where this tool is preferred.

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