check_pricing

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and 'Look up' only loosely implies a read-only operation. It says nothing about what pricing data comes back (per-image cost, per-endpoint breakdown, currency), whether results are cached, or any rate/permission constraints.

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 sentence with zero filler, front-loading the verb and the resource. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it never describes the shape of the pricing result an agent will receive, which is precisely the information the absent output schema would otherwise supply. Two optional params are documented in the schema, but the return-value gap leaves the definition materially incomplete.

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 documented in the schema (model slug defaulting to the line's primary model, action enum defaulting to the endpoint offering the model). The description adds no format or default semantics beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (look up pricing) and scopes it to RunAPI's qwen-image model line, which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling generation tools (text_to_image, remix_image, edit_image) and from get_task/login. It stops short of noting that the schema accepts arbitrary model slugs and actions, so the fixed scope is slightly narrower than the tool's actual reach.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight cost check before invoking a generation endpoint, but the description never says when to call it, when not to, or that it is the alternative to guessing costs. No explicit routing guidance to or from siblings is given.

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