check_pricing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states an action ('look up') implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly disclose the absence of side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a simple lookup tool, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler and conveys the essential purpose immediately.

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 tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not describe the return format or any prerequisites, potentially leaving an agent unsure what data to expect. However, the simplicity of the lookup operation keeps this from being a major 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains both parameters, including their enums and default behaviors. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and names the exact resource ('RunAPI pricing for the grok-imagine model line'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like text_to_image and edit_image, which are generation actions rather than pricing lookups.

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 phrase 'Look up RunAPI pricing' establishes a clear context: this is the tool for retrieving pricing information for the grok-imagine line. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the purpose is self-evident and no exclusion is needed since siblings are for different operations.

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