get_thirdparty_price_level

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It indicates a retrieval operation ('Obtenir') and its purpose, but does not disclose return format, error conditions, or the relationship to set_thirdparty_price_level. For a simple read tool, this is minimal but not severely lacking.

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 is a single, front-loaded sentence that states what the tool does and why it is used. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not mention the return value format or behavior (e.g., what a price level looks like). While 'niveau tarifaire' is self-explanatory, the lack of details about the response or related nuances leaves an incomplete picture.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description does not directly explain 'thirdparty_id'. It uses 'client' (customer) which partially clarifies that the ID refers to a customer, but 'thirdparty_id' is broader in ERP context, creating potential ambiguity. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 action ('Obtenir' / get) and the resource ('niveau tarifaire d'un client' / customer's price level), with an explicit purpose: 'pour savoir quel prix lui appliquer'. This distinguishes it from the sibling 'set_thirdparty_price_level' as the read/getter counterpart.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: to determine the price level to apply to a customer. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools (e.g., set_thirdparty_price_level or get_thirdparty_discount) or exclusions, but the purpose statement implies the read-only use case.

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