ls_get_price

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

Annotations already state read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the burden is lower, but the description adds a crucial behavioral disclosure: `unit_price` is misleading on tiered schemes and should be ignored, while `effective_unit_price` is the actual charged amount. It explicitly warns 'READ THAT, not `unit_price`' and separates behavior for tiered vs package pricing. This tells the agent how to correctly interpret the response data beyond what any annotation could convey.

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 long but every sentence contributes: it states purpose, then gives a concrete reading directive with detailed rationale for two pricing schemes. It is front-loaded with the core purpose before the caveats, and the structure flows logically from general instruction to specific fallback cases.

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 a two-parameter get-by-ID tool with a complete schema and read-only annotations, the description fully covers the domain-specific hazards of tiered and package pricing. It does not discuss error responses or include parameter options, but those are either standard expectations or covered by the schema. The description is more than sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.

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%, with both `priceId` and `include` already described in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning (it does not explain include options or constraints), so it does not exceed the baseline set by the high schema coverage.

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 clear verb-resource statement: 'Get a specific price by ID, including amount, currency, and billing interval.' This distinguishes it from siblings like ls_list_prices (which lists) and ls_get_product (different resource). The mention of specific returned fields leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 states the tool fetches a single price 'by ID', making it obvious that this is the right choice when you already have a price ID and need full details. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the ID-based scope of the purpose is clear enough for an agent to choose it over list/scan tools.

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