get_price

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying that it retrieves from 'Paddle' and mentions the 'include' parameter for related entities, offering some behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose additional traits like error handling, rate limits, or response format, which could be useful given no output schema.

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 well-structured and concise, with two sentences that directly address the tool's function and a key parameter. There is no wasted text, and information is front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, 1 required) and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but has gaps. It lacks output details (no schema provided), doesn't explain prerequisites like authentication, and offers no usage guidelines. This makes it minimally viable but incomplete for optimal agent use.

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 schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal semantics by explaining that 'include' can fetch 'related entities' like 'product,' but this is largely redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'retrieve a price from Paddle by its ID.' It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('price'), and source ('Paddle'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_prices' or 'preview_prices,' which would require a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the 'include' parameter for related entities but doesn't explain when this is necessary or compare it to other tools like 'get_product' or 'list_prices.' This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent without usage criteria.

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