asc_pricing_get

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

Annotations already mark readOnly and openWorld. The description goes further by explaining the underlying multi-hop data model, the currency-ons-territory quirk, and the collapse of ~175 lookups into a few requests. This is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond structured annotations.

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?

Three sentences with the purpose front-loaded. Each sentence earns its place: scope/result organization, efficiency/scale, and a domain gotcha. No filler or repetition.

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 100% parameter schema coverage and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the definition covers what is read, how results are organized, and why this tool is preferable to manual lookups. A formal response shape is not specified, and alternatives are not directly named, but the description is strong enough for correct 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?

The schema already covers all three parameters explicitly, including examples and 'omit for all' guidance, so the baseline is 3. The description adds related context about currency resolution but does not add new syntactic or constraint-level param details.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Read subscription pricing...'. It also specifies scope (every territory, per app), output behavior (currency resolved, territories grouped by price), and the read-versus-write distinction is clear against the asc_pricing_set sibling.

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 makes the intended use clear: efficiently reading pricing across territories and spotting outliers, while avoiding manual multi-hop lookups. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the read framing and performance benefit supply enough context.

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