Retrieve tax-exclusive product prices, names, tax, and markup from a price book, filtered by product IDs or name query and capped by a limit.
Prices in a price book (tax-exclusive): name, product_id, price, tax, markup. Filter by product_ids or query (name substring); capped at limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| product_ids | No | ||
| price_book_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: prices are tax-exclusive and results are capped at limit. That cap is the key behavioral trait (silent truncation), though the description doesn't say whether truncation is detectable or how to page past it.
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 dense sentence with no filler, and the returned-field list and filtering rules are front-loaded. The missing verb ('Prices in a price book') makes it read slightly as a fragment rather than an instruction, but nothing is wasted.
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?
With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return shape, and it covers the main calling concerns: required price book scope, filter options, and the result cap. Remaining gaps (pagination/truncation handling, ordering of results) are minor for a simple lookup 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for three of four parameters: product_ids filtering, query as a name substring match (semantics not in the schema), and limit as a cap. price_book_id is only implied by 'in a price book', and no syntax details (e.g. max limit) are given.
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 names the resource and its scope precisely: prices belonging to a specific price book, with the returned fields (name, product_id, price, tax, markup) enumerated. The phrase 'in a price book' distinguishes it from siblings like search_products or get_product, though no sibling is named explicitly for routing.
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?
It explains how to filter (product_ids or name-substring query) but never says when this tool is the right choice versus get_product, search_products, or list_products. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative recommendation, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.