check_pricing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The description implies a read-only lookup ('look up') but doesn't explicitly state it makes no changes, doesn't disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or response characteristics. It's a low-risk read operation, so the minimal disclosure is moderately acceptable, but richer behavioral context would help.

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 clear sentence that is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool. No wasted words. It could add slightly more context, but for the tool's apparent simplicity, this length is appropriate.

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 a 2-param tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. However, no output schema exists, so the description could have disclosed what the pricing response looks like (per-unit costs, tiers, currency), which would help the agent interpret results. This is a moderate gap for a pricing lookup tool.

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?

Both parameters have 100% schema description coverage with enums and helpful descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. With no params that require extra explanation and schema coverage at 100%, the description adequately distributes responsibility.

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 looks up RunAPI pricing for the qwen-image model line. Verb (look up) + resource (RunAPI pricing) + scope (qwen-image) is specific. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools, though the siblings are mostly functional endpoint tools (edit_image, remix_image, text_to_image) that are clearly different in nature.

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 on when to use this tool. It doesn't explain that it's complementary to the sibling endpoint tools (e.g., check pricing before calling edit_image). No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios are given. The timing/value of checking pricing before invoking an operation is implied but never stated.

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