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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavior: the price is converted from published soles pricing at today's official SUNAT rate, empty returns everything, and some products have no list price. It omits the response shape (e.g. whether the applied exchange rate is returned) and any indication of how current the rate is beyond 'today'.

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 what the tool returns and the conversion basis, then parameter semantics, then the coverage caveat. No filler, though the formatting is a bit dense for the amount of content.

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 single-parameter read tool this covers the input side well, but with no output schema the description should hint at what comes back (per-product USD price, currency field, applied rate). As written, the agent knows how to call it but not what to expect in the response.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it names the parameter, gives its provenance (an id from vira_list_products), supplies concrete examples ("facturin", "vendesolo"), and defines the empty-string default as 'return all'.

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 resource and scope: prices of Vira products in USD, converted from soles at the SUNAT rate. That is clearly distinct from vira_list_products, which it names as the source of ids, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with that sibling.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: pass a product_id from vira_list_products, or leave it empty for all products. It also warns that products lacking a list price are instead quoted by scope after a free diagnosis, which functions as a partial 'not applicable' caveat, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance against alternatives.

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