pricing__equalize_price

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

Annotations already declare this as destructive, and the description adds significant context: 'REVENUE-level write covering about 175 countries' and clarifies that prices are not copied across currencies but derived by Apple's tax/currency logic. The dry-run recommendation adds caution, though the dry-run flag is not present in the schema, which may cause minor confusion.

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 well-structured and concise: three sentences that lead with the core purpose, then give a compact how-to with examples, and end with an important operational warning. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 description is mostly complete for a write tool: it explains the scope, examples, and suggests a dry-run to see derived prices. However, it does not mention what the actual response/return value contains (no output schema), nor prerequisites like permissions or app existence, which would improve completeness for an agent.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions. The description reiterates the anchor territory and price format with examples, and clarifies product_type scope, but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, so 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 states the tool's action: 'Set one anchor price and let Apple derive the equivalent price in every other country, for an app, an in-app purchase or a subscription.' It specifies the exact resource scope and differentiates from sibling tools like pricing__set_subscription_price by emphasizing currency-based equalization across ~175 countries.

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 gives a clear usage context: use it when you want Apple to derive equivalent prices across territories, with examples (TUR, 99.99) and an explicit warning to run under --dry-run first. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when NOT to use it (e.g., when you want a simple non-equalized price set).

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