get_price_list_items

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a non-destructive read, and the description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of whether results are paginated, whether prices are returned with VAT or currency, or what happens when the price_list_id is unknown. For a tool with no output schema, the description carries most of the burden and does not meet it.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words and the resource is front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the cost of useful detail rather than from tight editing of rich 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?

With no output schema, an undocumented required parameter, and only a read-only annotation, the definition leaves the agent without the information needed to interpret the response or supply price_list_id correctly. Given the tool's simplicity the gap is not huge, but it is a real one.

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 coverage is only 50%: company_id has a description (default from FIC_COMPANY_ID or the token's single company) while price_list_id has none. The description supplies no meaning for either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented required parameter and adds nothing over 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 names the resource ('Prezzi dei prodotti in un listino'), which makes the domain clear, but it implies rather than states the verb ('get'/'retrieve'), and it never mentions the sibling list_price_lists to distinguish listing price lists from fetching their items. An agent can roughly infer the purpose but must consult the schema to confirm it returns product prices for a given list.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives, and no stated prerequisite such as requiring a valid price_list_id from list_price_lists. The agent is left to infer that a price list must already exist and that its ID comes from the sibling list tool.

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