Quote a Yorai job

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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with the description, and the description adds real context beyond it: no credits are held, the call is free, and it returns credits/upTo/line items. It does not mention error behavior for invalid model/input or rate limits, which keeps 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?

Two short sentences: the first states what it does and its non-effects, the second names the return shape and the cost. Zero waste and front-loaded.

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 usefully names the returned fields (credits, upTo, line items), and the nested input object is well documented in the schema. Minor gap: no note on how the optional `type` disambiguates or on failure modes for an invalid model/input combo.

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%, with per-field guidance including cross-references to yorai_get_model and yorai_upload_file, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already says.

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?

"Price a request without starting a job or holding credits" gives a specific verb (price/quote) and resource, and explicitly delimits it against the create-job sibling. An agent can tell this apart from yorai_create_job without opening either schema.

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 phrase "without starting a job or holding credits" makes the pre-flight dry-run use case clear and implicitly points to yorai_create_job as the alternative. It stops short of an explicit "use this before creating a job" instruction or exclusion of other siblings, but the context is unambiguous.

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