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 behavioral burden. "Look up" implies a safe read, but there is no disclosure of auth requirements, rate limits, caching/staleness of pricing data, or whether the `action` default silently picks an endpoint.

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 short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though borderline under-specified for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 (2 optional params, fully described schema, no nested objects, no output schema), so the description need not explain return values. It is minimally viable but leaves out any behavioral context that annotations would normally supply.

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 both `model` and `action` are already documented in the schema with their defaults and enum, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and arguably narrows scope to one model line.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("look up RunAPI pricing") and scopes it to a model line, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It is distinguishable from the unrelated siblings (audio_to_video, get_task, login), though it does not explicitly say so. The hardcoded "infinitetalk model line" slightly undersells the parameterized `model` argument in the schema.

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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisite, and no indication of when pricing lookup is or isn't appropriate. The only implicit guidance is that the sibling set contains no competing pricing tool.

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