dry_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the most important trait: "without calling any model," implying no spend and no execution. It also reveals preflight behavior ("which seat lacks which API key") in JSON mode. It omits any mention of permissions/auth needs, keeping it from a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and each sentence carries distinct information (what it does, param meaning, JSON output contents). The JSON-mode sentence is dense but every element listed is meaningful, and nothing is 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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing returns, and it enumerates the JSON payload fields (floor, expected price, maximum price, rows, missing API keys). The text-mode return is left unstated, a minor gap for an otherwise complete description of a 2-param pricing tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must define both parameters, and it does: chain is explained as a chain name (as list_chains shows, never a path) and json as a mode switch producing one JSON document. It adds genuine meaning beyond the bare schema types, though it could clarify the default/text behavior more explicitly.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource plus a key differentiator: "Price a chain without calling any model." This tells an agent exactly what the tool does and that it has no model side effects, distinguishing it from run tools. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like start_run or council_quote, so it stops short of 5.

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?

It gives parameter-level guidance ("chain is a chain name as list_chains shows it, never a path"), which steers correct invocation, but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as start_run or council_quote. Usage is implied (price before running) rather than stated, leaving a real routing gap.

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