get_prices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that results are limited to in-stock products, prices are in EUR, and price_per_kg is calculated. It could mention auth/error behavior, but for a simple read operation it is reasonably transparent.

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 concise sentences with the main action upfront and no redundant wording. Every clause adds useful information about scope, currency, or computed output.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, it explains the data returned, the currency, the in-stock filter, and the optional product slug. It doesn't enumerate response fields or pagination, but those are not essential given its simplicity.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a clear description ('Specific product slug (optional — omit for all)'). The tool description merely restates the slug selectivity without adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current product prices in EUR') and clearly defines the result scope (all in-stock products or by slug). It also mentions 'calculated price_per_kg', which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like search_products or check_availability.

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 clearly states that the optional slug controls whether you get all in-stock products or a specific product, which gives solid context for how to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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