check_pricing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Look up' implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of auth requirements, whether calls are billable/rate-limited, or the format of the pricing data returned — all relevant for a pricing endpoint.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and scope come first. Nothing repeats the name or wastes tokens.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description could usefully sketch the shape of returned pricing (units, currency, per-endpoint granularity) but does not. Scope is adequately stated, but return-value expectations are left unset for a tool whose whole purpose is retrieving data.

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%, so both 'model' and 'action' (including the action enum) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, defaulting, or relationship detail beyond what the schema states, 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 gives a specific verb ('look up') plus a bounded resource ('RunAPI pricing') and scope ('the wan model line'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling action tools or explain how the pricing scope relates to them, leaving that inference to the caller.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no mention of the defaulting behavior for model/action, and no guidance on what to do with the result. Only the verb 'look up' implies usage, which is weak guidance.

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