check_pricing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'look up' implies a read-only operation, which is helpful, but the description does not add further context such as rate limits, caching, or whether it accesses live pricing data. It is adequate but minimal.

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 sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

This is a simple lookup tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description clarifies the core purpose, and the schema covers parameters. While it does not describe the return format, that omission is acceptable for such a straightforward operation. It is complete enough for the tool's low complexity, though it could mention that it returns pricing data.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add parameter details, but the schema fully documents both 'model' and 'action' parameters, their defaults, and allowed values. No additional compensation is needed.

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's function: looking up RunAPI pricing for a specific model line (gemini-tts). The verb 'look up' is specific, the resource (RunAPI pricing) is named, and the scope is defined, distinguishing it from sibling tools like text_to_speech (which generates audio) and get_task (which fetches task status).

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 implies that the tool is used when pricing information is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Sibling tools are not mentioned or contrasted, so guidance is only implicit.

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