get_current_price

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the lack of side effects, and the description adds the expected output composition. It does not describe error behavior or missing-price handling, but for a read-only lookup this is not a critical omission.

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 two concise sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Every phrase adds useful information, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description provides enough context: what is returned and that this is the canonical source. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by naming the returned price components, though error cases are not addressed.

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 defines sku as a required string, and the description repeats the term SKU without adding format details or examples. The parameter is self-explanatory to most users, but the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the 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 returns the current price of a SKU and enumerates the specific price components (list price, active promotion, final cash price, card price). It also distinguishes this tool as the authoritative price source, making its purpose 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?

The description explicitly says 'This is the only valid source of prices,' providing strong guidance to prefer this tool for price lookups. It could more explicitly contrast with related tools like get_product_details or compare_products, but the guidance is sufficient for most cases.

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