apple_list_price_points

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it usefully discloses the domain constraint that prices come from a fixed table and that `around` narrows the result set. It says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, result volume, or what happens when no matches exist near `around`.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the domain rationale, then the one non-obvious parameter. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained here. Still, for a 3-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, the description omits the territory default and the meaning/format of subscription_id, and gives no indication of result size or filtering fallback behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for `around` (filters to points near a wanted price, with the 79.90 example), but says nothing about `subscription_id` or that `territory` defaults to BRA, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the price points available for a subscription in a territory'), so the agent immediately knows the operation. It does not, however, name or contrast with the most relevant sibling, apple_set_subscription_price, which consumes these points.

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?

It implies a workflow by explaining that Apple rejects arbitrary prices and you must pick from its table, which hints this precedes a price-setting call. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of the sibling write tool, and no prerequisites for territory/subscription selection.

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