List Action Prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint: true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond them. It does not mention that results default to active-only filtering, whether results are paginated, or that the tool reaches an external/remote source — all behavior an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 certainly concise and front-loaded, but at seven words it is under-specified rather than efficient; the terseness is the problem, not verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for an open-world, default-filtered listing tool the description leaves out the filtering behavior and the language behavior. Given a 2-parameter schema with one undocumented parameter, the definition is too thin to support confident invocation.

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%: lang is documented in the schema, but active_only has no description anywhere. The description does not compensate — neither parameter is mentioned, and the default-true active-only filter, which materially changes results, goes completely 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 names a verb ("List") and a resource ("marketing actions / promo prices"), so the general intent is inferable. However, "action prices" is ambiguous and the slash-separated phrasing leaves unclear whether this returns marketing campaigns, promotional fares, or price records. It also does nothing to distinguish itself from the sibling list_tariffs.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative list_tariffs, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with given the overlapping price/tariff vocabulary. The agent must guess from the name alone.

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