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 of disclosing behavioral traits. However, the description only states the basic function with no information about rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or any side effects. For a read-only pricing lookup tool, this is minimal but acceptable, yet it fails to provide any added behavioral context beyond the trivial.

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 clearly conveys the tool's purpose. There is no extraneous information, and it is well-structured for immediate understanding. Every word is necessary.

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?

Given the low complexity of the tool (two optional parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what the output looks like or any additional context (e.g., pricing format, units). For a simple lookup tool, this may be sufficient, but it is not fully complete.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (model and action), including enums and default behaviors. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 purpose: 'Look up RunAPI pricing for the ideogram-v3 model line.' It specifies the verb (look up) and the resource (pricing for a specific model line). Although it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, the siblings are action-oriented (edit_image, text_to_image, etc.), so the purpose is sufficiently clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, with no mention of when it is appropriate or when to avoid it. Given the siblings are all action tools, the context implies usage for pricing queries, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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