check_pricing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Look up' strongly implies a safe, non-mutating read, which is useful, but nothing is said about auth requirements, rate limits, or what pricing figures represent (per-call, per-second, currency). Adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 tool is simple (two optional params, complete schema, no output schema), so the description is close to sufficient, but it omits any usage context and gives no hint of what the pricing response expresses. It is the minimum viable for calling the tool, not a complete briefing.

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 'model' and 'action' parameters are already fully documented with defaults and an enum. The description adds only the 'happyhorse model line' framing, which is marginally useful but also slightly narrower than the schema, which accepts an arbitrary model slug.

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?

Clear verb+resource+scope: 'Look up RunAPI pricing' names both the action and the subject, and 'happyhorse model line' narrows the domain. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling tools (edit_video, image_to_video, text_to_video), whose names also appear as the 'action' enum values in this tool's schema, leaving an ambiguity an agent must resolve itself.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool. The likely workflow (check cost before invoking an endpoint) is left entirely to inference.

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