get_pricing_by_quantity

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds one behavioral nuance—that parent availability is distinct from package stock—but does not explain the meaning of the pricing options or any output format, so it adds limited value beyond the annotations.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core action and adds a relevant edge case. No redundant filler; every word contributes.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to clarify the semantics of the optional parameters (includes, account_id), the meaning of the pricing options, or the return structure, leaving the agent to infer too much.

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 has four parameters with zero description coverage. The description does not explain what product_number, requested_quantity, includes, or account_id represent; it only implies quantity relevance through the tool name. There is no compensation for the missing schema 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 uses the specific verb 'Compare' and identifies concrete pricing option types (exact, effective-MOQ, BetterValue, maximum-order), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_product_pricing and get_digireel_pricing. The added nuance about parent availability vs package stock further clarifies scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_product_pricing or get_alternate_packaging. The description implies it is for comparing multiple pricing tiers for a requested quantity, but lacks 'use this when' or 'instead of' directives.

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