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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description is not required to carry the safety burden. It adds only the endpoint identifier, and says nothing about result scope (all prices vs. active only), ordering, or pagination behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The purpose leads and the API reference is a compact secondary detail.

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 two-parameter, read-only list tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It nonetheless omits any sense of what is returned (price types, active/inactive) or how pagination should be driven, which an agent coordinating multi-page listing would want.

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 limit and cursor fully documented in the schema including defaults and range. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (prices) scoped to the Orb account, and even cites the underlying endpoint GET /prices. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling orb_get_price, leaving the list-vs-single distinction to inference from the names.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as orb_get_price for a single price, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is the bulk-retrieval variant purely from the name.

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