owlvin_pricing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'returns available credit packages with prices, bonuses, and per-call costs for each service,' which implies a read-only operation that fetches data. However, it doesn't mention potential behaviors like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description adds some value but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose and the second elaborating on the return values. Both sentences earn their place by adding useful information without redundancy. It's efficient, though not perfectly structured for maximum clarity.

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 complexity (simple read operation with 0 parameters), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, and since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values further. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like authentication or rate limits, given the lack of annotations.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter info, as there are none to explain. It provides a baseline level of clarity about what the tool does without parameter details, which is sufficient for a tool with no inputs.

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 purpose: 'Show credit packages and pricing for the Owlvin platform.' It specifies the verb 'show' and the resource 'credit packages and pricing,' making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'owlvin_credits' or 'owlvin_buy_credits,' which might have overlapping or related functionality, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like 'owlvin_credits' or 'owlvin_buy_credits' that might be related. This lack of usage instructions leaves the agent without clear direction on tool selection.

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