pricing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It describes the tool as a read operation returning pricing data, with no destructive behavior mentioned. It is adequately transparent for a simple retrieval tool, though it does not mention any potential cost for calling it or authentication requirements, which are minor gaps.

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 long but well-structured, with the purpose front-loaded and details following. Every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise, but it remains clear and informative.

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 there are no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is very complete: it states what the tool returns, the specific information covered, and a clear use case. No critical information is missing.

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 no parameters, so the description need not explain them. It adds value by describing what the output contains (free vs paid, pricing options, etc.), which is the relevant semantic information. A score of 4 is appropriate as baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 returns 'the machine-readable pricing menu for this server' and enumerates specific details it covers (free vs paid, pay-per-call vs prepaid, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('pricing menu'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like account_balance and account_deposit.

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 explicitly tells when to use it: 'Call this first to understand what is available and at what cost before using paid tools.' This provides clear guidance and implies not using it if pricing is not relevant, with no exclusions needed.

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