apps__app_price_points__list

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds the context that the tool lists allowed price points and that filtering by territory is available. However, it does not disclose details like pagination behavior or the fact that certain inputs (e.g., 'US') silently return empty results, which are disclosed in the schema but not the description. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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 highly concise: two sentences that are front-loaded with the core function and immediately follow with the primary use case and endpoint. No filler or redundant content.

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 list endpoint with 100% schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is sufficient. It includes the endpoint path and key use case. It does not cover pagination or field selection, but those are already described in the schema, and the tool is simple enough that a short description is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by tying filter_territory to finding a price point ID and mentioning the purpose, but it does not explain each parameter's syntax or nuances beyond what the schema already provides.

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's purpose: listing allowed price points for an app's purchase price. The verb 'list' and resource 'app price points' are specific, and the mention of filtering by territory to find a price point ID distinguishes it from other app-related tools.

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 a concrete use case: filter by territory to find the price point ID for a desired price. It implies when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclude other tools. The context from sibling tools (e.g., pricing__set_subscription_price) helps, but the description could be more explicit about when not to use it.

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