get_prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that annual_kwh triggers backend-side computation and explicitly warns against client-side re-derivation, and it clarifies the difference between summary and detailed outputs. It does not discuss pagination behavior or authentication, but the 'Fetch' verb implies a read operation and core behavior is disclosed.

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 compact and well-structured: the main purpose is front-loaded, and the second paragraph adds only high-value operational details. Every sentence earns its place, including the warning not to re-derive fees client-side.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the central workflow but omits pagination semantics, the role of 'since', and how this tool relates to its siblings. The presence of an output schema and clear core behavior makes it usable, but the definition is not fully complete for a complex 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 adds real meaning for annual_kwh and detail_level, and lightly maps sprzedawca to 'retailer' while mentioning date, market, region, and annual consumption as scoping options. However, it does not explain page, size, since, or the exact meaning of osd and taryfa beyond the phrase 'OSD + tariff', leaving several parameters only inferable from names.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Fetch') and a precise resource ('composite electricity prices and rate breakdown'), scoped to OSD and tariff. It naturally differentiates this tool from siblings like search_tariffs and get_tariff_components by focusing on composite price retrieval rather than tariff lookup or component extraction.

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 clearly establishes the main use case: fetch prices for a given OSD and tariff, with optional filters. It gives practical guidance for annual_kwh and detail_level, but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or when a sibling would be preferable. Context is clear, but exclusions are absent.

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