get_pricing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool returns the pricing entry point, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but adequate. It communicates the core purpose. However, it could be improved by clarifying what 'canonical pricing entry point' means (e.g., URL, object) to fully equip the agent.

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 are zero parameters, so the description naturally adds no parameter-level details. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly communicates the tool's purpose. It adds value by explaining the return value.

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 states the tool returns the 'canonical pricing entry point' for SeedanceAI. It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('pricing entry point'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings (list_styles, get_official_links) which handle different concerns.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or conditions for use, leaving the agent without clarity on when this tool is appropriate.

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