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. It only states 'look up pricing' but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, data freshness, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. Insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or 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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded with the key action and object. 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 the tool has 2 optional parameters with full enum schemas but no output schema, the description is minimal. It states what the tool does but does not explain what it returns (e.g., pricing details, format). Adequate but missing output context that an agent would need to interpret results.

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 enums and descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly.

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 seedance model line.' It provides a specific verb ('look up'), resource ('RunAPI pricing'), and scope ('seedance model line'). It easily distinguishes from siblings 'get_task' and 'text_to_video' which are unrelated.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. However, the sibling tools are unrelated (tasks and video), so the context is clear. Still, lacks any direction on when not to use or prerequisites.

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