Get a Wiro task price

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the billing condition (successful billed, failed not) and the next action (wait_for_task if active). This enriches understanding beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The primary purpose is front-loaded ('Get one task’s final charged cost'), and the subsidiary conditions follow. Every sentence earns its place with essential information.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains the billing rule and the next action for active tasks, which are the non-obvious aspects. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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%, with both taskid and tasktoken fully documented. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. No additional semantic value is provided.

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 specific verb 'Get' and resource 'one task’s final charged cost'. It also adds the distinction that successful tasks are billed while failed ones are not, which differentiates this from the generic get_task. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_task or list_tasks. The only conditional is 'If the task is active, follow the returned wait_for_task', which is a post-call instruction rather than tool-selection guidance. The description does not help the agent choose between this and sibling tools.

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