get_pricing

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Return', implying a read-only operation, but does not describe what the actual return value looks like (e.g., a URL, an object, a text string), any authentication requirements, or potential error behaviors. This lack of detail limits an agent's ability to anticipate outcomes.

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 description is a single, focused sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the key verb and object, making it easy to scan.

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 is extremely simple (no parameters, no output schema), so the minimal description is partially acceptable. However, the phrase 'pricing entry point' remains ambiguous—whether it returns a URL, a data structure, or a human-readable string. Given siblings that are also retrieval tools, more specificity would help complete the picture.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (an empty schema). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, but with no parameters to document, there is no deficit.

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 clearly identifies the tool's action ('Return') and resource ('canonical pricing entry point for DeepSeek FR'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_models and get_official_links by focusing on pricing, though 'entry point' is somewhat abstract and could be more specific (e.g., 'URL' or 'data endpoint').

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. For a retrieval tool, this absence is a clear gap.

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