h3_art_quote

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

Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does report two useful points: the call is free ('no charge'), and pricing is based on a snapshot of rates observed on 2026-10-26. It does not say whether the result is an estimate or a binding price, whether an invalid resolution or duration errors out, or whether the returned quote has any validity window.

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 tight sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and the free-call fact appended, so there is no filler. The compression leaves some terms ('AutoDL Art managed H3') unexplained, but the sentence is not padded.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, so the description should work harder than it does. It never states what the quote returns (a number? a per-second rate? a currency?), nor how duration and resolution combine to produce the price, which is exactly what a pricing tool's description must cover.

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 both parameters (duration, resolution) appear only as titles with defaults; the description compensates for nothing. It does not explain the units for duration, the accepted resolution values, or the default '480p横' format, so an agent must guess how its inputs change the quoted price.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Estimate ... H3 price,' and it scopes that to 'AutoDL Art managed H3.' It does not explicitly say how this differs from the sibling h3_art_quote_workflow, so the agent must infer from the name alone that this tool quotes a single managed job, where the sibling quotes a workflow.

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 words 'Estimate ... price' imply that this tool is used before generation, and 'no charge' signals that the call is free. However, the description names no alternative, says nothing about when to use h3_art_quote_workflow instead, and gives no prerequisites, leaving the choice between the sibling tools to inference.

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