get_game_prices

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

With no annotations, the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the core action (read current prices) and input type, but omits potential caveats like price data refresh latency, behavior for invalid UUIDs, or whether any auth/rate limits apply. It is not misleading, but it leaves some behavioral ambiguity for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

A single, well-constructed sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes all necessary context (storefronts, input type, multiplicity). No waste or redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, which storefronts, and what inputs are expected. It does not explicitly describe return format or error behavior, but the phrase 'current prices and discounts' sufficiently implies the response content. Slightly more detail would push it to the top.

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 description compensates for the schema's missing description of the 'ids' parameter by stating 'one or more ITAD game UUIDs', which clarifies the string/array union. The 'country' parameter is already well-described in the schema with default 'US'. This adds meaning beyond the schema for the less-documented parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('get') and clearly identifies the resource ('current prices and discounts across digital storefronts') and input type ('ITAD game UUIDs'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_historical_low (historical) and get_active_deals (deals) by emphasizing current pricing and multi-storefront coverage.

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 defines its scope (current prices/discounts across storefronts), giving an agent ample context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, falling short of the explicit when/when-not criteria.

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