Query price lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essential behavioral details beyond annotations: cursor-based pagination, exhaustion condition, and the exact response shape with active|removed status. This is more than the baseline expectation, though it stops short of disclosing ordering or rate limits.

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 dense sentences deliver the tool's purpose, usage pattern, response shape, relationships to other tools, and fallback alternatives. No wasted words; each sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the input semantics, output shape, pagination behavior, and relationship to sibling tools. It also points to raw_request for untooled endpoints, making the context complete within the tool ecosystem.

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 100% with both limit and cursor already described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining how they interact: cursor comes from previous response, omit for first page, and iteration ends when page size is fewer than limit. This ties the parameters to the pagination pattern beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 it's a cursor-based feed to list price lists, the API's only way to list them. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting that IDs feed get_prices and set_prices, and that related endpoints without a dedicated tool are reachable via raw_request.

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?

Explicitly says this is the only way to list price lists and explains how to obtain a full snapshot by iterating until a page has fewer items than limit. It also directs users with needs for related endpoints to raw_request, providing clear when-to-use and alternative context.

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