get_prices

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, what the response shape is, or whether multiple countries/services can be queried in one call. The verb 'get' hints at a non-destructive operation, but that is not explicit.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, delivering the core message without waste.

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 that there are three parameters with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It communicates the tool's purpose but omits details about return format, invocation nuances (e.g., whether service is optional), or how version affects pricing. However, for a straightforward lookup tool, this may be sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides; it just reiterates the general purpose. The schema clearly defines country, service, and version, including the '*' wildcard for country, so this is adequate.

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 verb ('get'), the resource ('prices for services'), and the scope ('by country'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_countries and get_services by specifying that this tool retrieves pricing data. The intent is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where get_balance or get_wallet might be more appropriate. The description implies its use for price lookups but provides no explicit context.

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