check_pricing

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention response format or error behavior. While 'look up' suggests a safe read, the description lacks deeper context that could be expected from a tool with no annotations.

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 that gets straight to the point. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simple pricing lookup with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could be improved by indicating the type of response (e.g., a list of prices), but it is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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%, with both parameters (model and action) clearly described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value beyond the schema.

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 resource ('RunAPI pricing') with a clear scope ('happyhorse model line'). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from sibling generation/editing tools like edit_video and image_to_video.

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 clearly implies usage for retrieving pricing information, providing enough context for when to use it. It does not explicitly state exclusions or mention alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident given the sibling tool set.

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