check_pricing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Look up pricing' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and the tool appears safe and non-destructive. However, it does not mention any additional traits like rate limits or authentication requirements, but for a simple lookup, this level of transparency is acceptable.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence that fully communicates the tool's purpose without any extraneous words. Every word earns its place.

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 that the tool is a simple lookup with no output schema, the combination of a clear description and a well-defined schema provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool. The only missing element is usage guidelines, but for this low complexity, the overall completeness is high.

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 has 100% description coverage, with each parameter having its own description and enum values. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: looking up RunAPI pricing for the nano-banana model line. The verb 'look up' and the specific resource 'pricing for the nano-banana model line' make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes this tool from siblings like edit_image, get_task, and text_to_image.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Users must infer from the tool name and context, but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'consider using X instead' information.

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