check_pricing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It never states that this is a read-only/no-side-effect operation, whether it consumes credits, or what the response contains, and it hardcodes 'gpt-4o-image' even though the schema lets the caller pass any model slug.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, so length is not the problem.

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 zero-required-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the agent can invoke it, but it gets no picture of what pricing data is returned or how it is shaped. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the model and action parameters are already fully documented with defaults, making the baseline 3 appropriate. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema and arguably narrows the model scope more than the schema does.

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?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (RunAPI pricing) scoped to a named model line, which is clearly distinct from the siblings text_to_image, get_task, and login. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, but no plausible confusion exists.

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 statement of when to call this versus text_to_image (e.g., 'check cost before invoking generation') and no prerequisites or exclusions. The use case is only loosely implied by the word 'pricing'.

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