Target action: prices by listing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this with 'Read-only — does not change spending.' and adds specific behavioral details like batch limit and price unit (kopecks). No contradictions.

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 two sentences with front-loaded key information: what it does, batch size, and returned details. The second sentence provides usage guidance and alternative. No superfluous words.

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 the tool has only one parameter with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, batch constraints, and alternative tool. It could note the exact return structure (actionTypeID, strategy), but that is implied.

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 covers the single parameter 'itemIDs' 100% with its description. The description reiterates the batch limit (up to 200) and that it's a list of Avito listing IDs, but adds no significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'current target-action bids and budgets for MULTIPLE listings at once', with specifics about batch size (up to 200) and returned fields (actionTypeID, strategy, price/limit/budget). It distinguishes from the sibling 'cpa_target_get_bids' which is for single listings.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use it to bulk-check current settings' and directly names an alternative tool for single listings: 'for a single listing with full min/max/recommendations and a forecast, use cpa_target_get_bids'. It also mentions a rate limit (400 req/min).

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