check_pricing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'look up', implying a read-only operation, but does not detail response format, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether pricing data is static or dynamic.

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 one short sentence, highly concise. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it may be too terse, omitting details that could aid understanding (e.g., output format). Still, it earns its place with zero fluff.

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's simplicity (2 enum parameters, no output schema), the description should explain what pricing information is returned (e.g., per-unit costs, tiers) and any default behaviors. The current description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's context.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions already present. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., defaults or relationships between model and action). Score is baseline 3.

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 function: 'Look up RunAPI pricing for the seedream model line.' It specifies a specific verb ('look up'), resource ('pricing'), and scope ('seedream model line'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle image editing or task retrieval.

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 versus alternatives. The description lacks information about typical scenarios or comparisons with siblings (edit_image, get_task, text_to_image). Users must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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