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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states that SKUs without a price in the given currency/tier are still listed (with 'none'), and that a date parameter overrides 'today'. This goes beyond annotations, though the trailing 'Free' is ambiguous and could confuse.

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 and front-loads the purpose and filters. It is concise and free of redundant phrasing. The 'Free' at the end is an odd addition that could be interpreted as a cost note or a leftover, slightly diminishing clarity, but overall the structure is efficient.

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 list tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose and key behavior (including no-price SKUs). However, it does not describe the response format (e.g., fields returned) or any pagination details beyond the limit parameter, which is documented in the schema. Given annotations cover safety, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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%, so every parameter (date, tier, limit, prefix, currency) is already documented with its meaning and defaults. The description only reiterates that filters are applied but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'catalogue lines', with explicit filters (prefix, currency, tier) and a temporal qualifier ('price in force today'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like price_list_pdf/text by focusing on raw data output rather than formatted documents, and from sku_get by listing many lines rather than a single SKU.

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 implies when to use it (to list catalogue lines with current prices) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Siblings like price_list_text/pdf exist for formatted output, but no guidance is given to route the agent away from them. Usage context is clear but exclusions are absent.

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