Get a Wiro task price

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the billing policy for success vs failure and the conditional wait_for_task action for active tasks. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it doesn't cover all possible edge cases.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: the purpose, the billing rule, and the action for active tasks. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

With an output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and key behavioral nuances (success/failure billing, active task handling). It doesn't need to explain return values, and it addresses the main edge cases, though it leaves some minor aspects like missing both parameters unaddressed.

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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, including the alternative relationship between taskid and tasktoken. The description itself does not add further parameter details, so with high schema coverage, a 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 'Get one task’s final charged cost,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_task and list_tasks by focusing on the billed cost rather than general task details. The title reinforces this purpose.

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 clear context: you use this to retrieve the final cost, with the caveat that successful tasks are billed and failed ones are not. It also instructs to follow the wait_for_task action if the task is active. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or say when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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