get_pricing_run_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It declares the tool is 'Read-only' and describes the return structure. However, it lacks disclosure of potential side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The prerequisite linkage adds some transparency, but overall behavioral details are minimal.

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 consists of four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, comparison, usage, prerequisite, read-only note, and return type. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. The phrase 'Returns JSON object' is slightly redundant, but overall the description is concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description references 'the same data structure as get_pricing_dashboard', which is helpful if the agent knows that structure. However, it does not detail the specific fields or any limits. For a tool with only two parameters and a defined use case, this is moderately complete but leaves some gaps for an agent unfamiliar with the dashboard 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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds only the context that 'runId' comes from 'get_pricing_history', which is already in the schema description. Thus, the description provides marginal additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'full competitor-by-competitor Pricing Intelligence data for a specific historical run', specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_pricing_dashboard' by noting it returns the same structure for a past point in time, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly advises to 'use this to investigate pricing changes between runs or audit a specific monitoring cycle' and notes the prerequisite 'Requires runId from get_pricing_history.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the comparison with 'get_pricing_dashboard' implies it is for historical data rather than current. This provides clear context for usage.

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