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. It says 'look up,' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format. For a simple pricing lookup, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 schema covers parameters and defaults, but the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to combine model/action for pricing lookup. Since there is no output schema, the description could be more informative about the response, but the tool is simple and the scope is minimal.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, including defaults. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Look up RunAPI pricing' with a specific scope ('grok-imagine model line'). This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like edit_image or get_task, which are operational or task-related.

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 usage: when pricing for the grok-imagine model line is needed, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools if the user needs something else (e.g., actual image generation). It lacks clear exclusions or alternative guidance.

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