Check pricing action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states that the tool writes a decision event, which is a side effect, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as error conditions, rate limits, or required permissions. The description is adequate but could be more transparent.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences, but the first sentence is somewhat dense listing many factors. It could be slightly more focused, but overall it is not overly verbose.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks important details such as what the return value is, any constraints on input formats, and preconditions for use. It is incomplete for an agent to invoke reliably.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema properties have no descriptions. The tool's description mentions criteria like 'absolute floor' and 'discount limits' but these are not parameters; the actual parameters (date, agentId, courseId, etc.) are not explained. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.

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 the tool checks whether a quoted or discounted price is allowed, specifying several criteria. It also mentions that it writes a decision event, but does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tool 'write_decision_event' which may cause ambiguity.

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?

The description implies usage when validating a price, but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For example, if only a decision event needs to be written without checking, the sibling 'write_decision_event' would be more appropriate, but this is not mentioned.

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