get_pricing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only operation via 'Return', but does not disclose what exactly is returned (e.g., URL, object), or whether any authentication or rate limits apply. It is minimally adequate but lacks depth beyond the basic action.

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, clear sentence that states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and effectively conveys the core functionality in a front-loaded manner.

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 simple (no parameters, no output schema), but the description is somewhat ambiguous: 'canonical pricing entry point' could mean a URL, a set of pricing details, or an internal identifier. Without an output schema or further explanation, the agent may not know what to expect from the return value, leaving a notable gap in completeness.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema leaves nothing to clarify. The description adds no parameter information, but none is required.

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 states the tool returns the canonical pricing entry point for Tiramisu AI, using a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('pricing entry point'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_site_overview and get_official_links, which handle other aspects of the site.

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 alternative tools, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use case must be inferred entirely from the tool's name and purpose, leaving the agent without explicit selection criteria.

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