get_vps_pricing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior: cpu_price/ram_price/disk_price are hourly, ip_price is monthly with a 720-divisor conversion, and the fields match list_regions. This exceeds the minimum without fully describing the response envelope.

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 sentences, front-loaded purpose, then unit semantics and a cross-reference to list_regions. Every clause contributes information and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter read-only pricing lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (per-unit pricing fields), the units of those fields, and when to call it. The list_regions cross-reference fills any remaining ambiguity about field names and units.

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 schema has one required vps_id with 0% description coverage. The description implies vps_id identifies the VPS whose region's pricing is returned, but it does not explicitly define the parameter or explain how to obtain the ID. Since vps_id is a conventional identifier and the only parameter, this is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 opens with 'Current per-unit pricing for this VPS's region', naming the exact resource and scope. It further distinguishes itself from billing tools by noting it is useful before resize_vps to preview cost, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like get_vps_billing or list_regions.

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 a concrete use case: 'useful before calling resize_vps to preview cost'. It also points to list_regions for the same field/unit semantics. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare it with get_vps_billing/get_usage_billing, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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