service_backups_get_backups_price

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. Beyond restating the endpoint path, the description adds nothing about monetary units, currency, whether the value is a quote that may vary, or what the response contains.

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 lines with no filler and the purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though the second line is essentially a raw route note rather than explanatory content.

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 simple one-parameter read with no output schema, the definition covers the minimum: what is fetched and against which service. However, because there is no output schema, the description is the only place to explain the returned price (unit, currency, period), and it omits that entirely.

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?

There is a single parameter with 0% schema description coverage — the schema only says 'number'. The path template '{serviceId}' does imply the parameter identifies the service whose backup pricing is queried, which is modest added meaning, but nothing is said about valid values or how an invalid ID is handled.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get backups price') and the HTTP path scopes it to a single service, which distinguishes it from list/create/enable siblings such as service_backups_get_list. It stops short of saying what kind of price (recurring, prorated, per-item) is returned, so it is clear but not fully disambiguated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus price-related siblings like services_get_price or services_get_change_product_price, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The only implied context is the REST path, which the agent must interpret on its own.

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