Price Tables Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations do not: the required OAuth scope (read_products) and the API version, both of which affect whether the call will succeed. It omits error behavior for an invalid or missing ID.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action and then the endpoint, scope and version. Every line carries distinct information with zero filler.

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 simple read-only single-resource getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it does not say what happens when the ID is not found, nor how the fields/response_format parameters affect results. Given the low complexity, a 3 is reasonable but there is room to say more.

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 description coverage is 100%, so id, fields and response_format are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

"Get one price table" states a specific verb (get) and resource (price table), and the word "one" signals single-resource retrieval versus the siblings tiendanube_price_tables_list and tiendanube_price_tables_create. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb – fetch a single price table by ID. There is no statement of when to prefer this over tiendanube_price_tables_list, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. An agent can infer the intent but is not routed.

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