get_task_price

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only successful tasks are billed and returns total cost. It does not mention read-only nature explicitly, but 'get' implies that. Missing details on auth or rate limits, but adequate for a simple read tool.

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?

Three short sentences with front-loaded purpose, clear return value, and billing condition. No redundant information, every sentence adds value.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and billing condition. However, it omits what happens for incomplete tasks (e.g., error vs zero) and does not describe the return format (e.g., number vs string). Slightly lacking for full self-containment.

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% for both parameters (tasktoken and taskid). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it gets the cost of a completed task, with specific verb 'get' and resource 'cost of a completed task'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_task' which likely returns broader details, and mentions billing condition.

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 explains that billing only applies to successful tasks, implying failed tasks have no cost. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for incomplete tasks) or provide alternatives like 'get_task' for status.

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