get_preset_pricing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the fact that no token is required ('Токен не требуется'), which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't describe the response format or any other behavioral traits. With annotations covering the read-only nature, a 3 is appropriate – some added value but not rich context.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded ('Цены на доступные пресеты...'), followed by the token requirement. It's appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could arguably include a bit more context about usage.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and the token requirement adequately. Given the tool's low complexity, it's fairly complete. The lack of return-format description is a minor gap for such a simple query tool, but not critical.

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 100% – the single `currencies` parameter is fully documented in the schema with format examples (EUR,USD) and a default (EUR). The description adds nothing beyond the schema's parameter documentation, merely referencing 'specified currencies'. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the full parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns prices (Цены) for available presets in specified currencies. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_presets (which lists presets) and get_preset (which gets a single preset). The endpoint hint '(presets/info)' is somewhat cryptic for non-Russian speakers but doesn't obscure the purpose. It's clear but doesn't explicitly name its sibling differentiation.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_presets, search_presets, or get_preset. There are no stated conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing. An agent must infer the usage context purely from the purpose statement, which is a significant gap given the many sibling preset-related tools.

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