run_pricing_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the cost ('Consumes 1 Auto-Credit'), which is real value beyond structured fields, but it omits whether recommendations are auto-applied, whether the operation is reversible, latency, and idempotency behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its output, then the cost constraint. Nothing extraneous and no filler.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is only adequate. It never indicates what the audit returns, how long it takes, or whether it mutates prices, leaving the agent to guess at the post-call state.

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 store_id and strategy (balanced/aggressive/conservative) documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the phrase 'for store inventory' and no strategy semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Run an AI pricing audit' that 'generate[s] competitive pricing recommendations for store inventory'. This clearly separates it from siblings like run_inventory_sweep and evaluate_item_collectibility, though it does not name an alternative directly.

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?

Usage is only implied: agents can infer it is for getting pricing recommendations on store inventory. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion criteria, and no mention of prerequisites beyond the credit cost.

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