company_price_probes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains internal decision logic (largest increase within tolerance, repricing to floor) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. Given 'plan' suggests analysis, the lack of explicit read-only/return behavior is a gap.

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 run-on sentence, dense with domain jargon and multiple clauses. It front-loads the core action early but then becomes a wall of text without clear structure. It could be broken into bullets or separate sentences for readability.

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 complexity, 7 parameters, and no parameter descriptions, this description is incomplete. It explains the planning algorithm and payload keys but fails to clarify what bundle_json should contain, what project_id refers to, or the structure of the output (even though an output schema exists, its use is not explained). An agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does provide some detail on the payload structure (window_start, window_end, previous_window_start) but completely omits the required parameters project_id and bundle_json, plus other optional fields like now, engine, operation, and entity_ref. The description gives partial compensation but leaves key invocation details unexplained.

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 action ('Plan the sealed price probes for the window') and enumerates the specific metrics and decision rules involved. It distinguishes the tool's domain well, though it doesn't explicitly contrast it with sibling pricing tools like company_price_catalog or commerce_price_optimization_run.

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 implies usage for planning price probes in a given window and mentions optional payload fields (window_start, window_end, previous_window_start) and a conditional rule (when a previous window is given). However, it does not articulate when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions.

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