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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the default archived-item exclusion and that cost_minor is null for workers without cost visibility, but it omits read-only status, auth requirements, pagination, and return behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by filtering defaults and the cost visibility caveat. There is no wasted text.

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 simple list tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers purpose, filtering, archived defaults, and a non-obvious cost visibility rule. It still lacks pagination/return details and does not explicitly state that shop_id is required, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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% across 4 parameters. The description maps category, text, archived inclusion, and shop context, but does not clarify q versus category semantics, q max length, shop_id UUID/required status, or include_archived's default meaning, so it only partially compensates.

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 ('price book items') with a clear shop scope and ordering clue ('by name'). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as pricebook_saveItem or pricebook_archiveItem, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

Explains that filtering is by category or text and that archived items are excluded by default unless requested, giving clear usage context. It does not name alternatives or describe when another sibling like pricebook_taskCost should be used instead.

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