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. 'Look up' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, but it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, response format, caching, or whether the data is live. This is minimal transparency, and important behavioral traits are absent.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every part of the sentence contributes meaning. It is appropriately concise for such a simple lookup tool.

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?

The tool is very simple (no required parameters, no output schema, no nested objects). The description covers the core purpose and the schema fully documents the parameters. However, it does not describe what the returned pricing data contains or how to interpret it, which is a gap given there is no output schema. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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%; both 'model' and 'action' have clear descriptions including defaults in the schema itself. The description text adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 'Look up RunAPI pricing for the suno model line' uses a specific verb ('look up') and a specific resource ('RunAPI pricing for the suno model line'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling audio/action endpoints because it is the only one about pricing. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or state what it is not, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention checking pricing before running an expensive operation, nor does it note any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer its role from the name alone. There is no explicit context for when it should be called.

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