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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's added value is the disclosure of what comes back: net vs. taxed price per variant plus the detail id. It also discloses the underlying endpoint, which helps an agent understand it is an unauthenticated-scope-dependent REST read. It does not mention rate limits or whether expand affects payload size.

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 compact sentences front-loaded with return content, then filters, then the endpoint. Each sentence carries information; the trailing URL is marginally useful for API-literate agents but not 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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return fields, the filter options, and the downstream use of the detail id. Gaps are `expand` behavior and pagination expectations, but the schema documents limit/offset and next_offset adequately.

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 coverage is only 43%, so the description partially compensates by mapping three filters (SKU code, barcode, variant id) to their parameters, which is more than the schema's bare type declarations. But `price_list_id`, `expand`, and the pagination semantics are left entirely to the schema, and `expand` — the most ambiguous parameter — is undocumented anywhere.

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 names the resource precisely ('Prices in one price list') and enumerates what is returned: net price (variantValue), price with taxes, and the detail id. This is distinctly a detail-level read, separable from bsale_list_price_lists, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Filter by variant id, SKU code or barcode' gives concrete narrowing context, and 'the detail id needed to change a price' implicitly positions this as the precursor to bsale_update_price. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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