get-llm-reset-price

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it declares read-only semantics, discloses that price_tokens is null when a window isn't resettable, and lists the per-window fields returned. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and whether the quote is stable over time.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then implementation anchor, then return shape, then the read-only caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the response fields (available, price_tokens, used_percent, reason) including their null semantics. Combined with the read-only caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail and instead spends its words on the return shape, which is the right allocation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Quote the cost of resetting the LLM usage windows') and pins it to an exact backend route (GET /api/v1/llm/limits/reset/price), which cleanly separates it from get-llm-limits and other billing siblings like get-balance or list-token-pricing.

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 opening sentence establishes the use case (pricing a reset), and the closing 'Read-only — it does not purchase the reset' rules out confusion with an actual reset action. It never names a sibling alternative explicitly (e.g. get-llm-limits for window status), so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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