timeweb_get_service_prices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state it is safe/non-destructive, nor does it mention any behavior like output format defaults (markdown vs json) beyond what the schema already covers. It also doesn't clarify whether the pricing data is static or account-specific, leaving a transparency gap.

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, focused sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it misses an opportunity to add brief usage guidance (e.g., when to use vs. list_server_presets) without becoming verbose, so while concise, it's not maximally effective.

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 (1 optional param, no output schema), the description is narrowly sufficient: it states the tool retrieves pricing for all services. However, it lacks context about the exact scope ('all available services' is vague, could mean a catalog or account-specific list) and doesn't mention that the 'format' parameter controls human vs machine-readable output (the schema does, but the description could reinforce it). For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%: the single optional parameter 'format' has a complete description in the schema ('Output format: 'markdown' for human-readable or 'json' for machine-readable'). The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get pricing for all available services' clearly identifies the tool's function: retrieving pricing information for the full service catalog. The verb 'get' and resource 'pricing' are specific, and 'all available services' indicates broad scope. It doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like list_server_presets or get_finances, which could also involve pricing, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_server_presets (which might include per-resource pricing) or get_finances (account billing). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, so the agent receives no help deciding between this and related tools.

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