wb_get_prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true and openWorldHint: true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the return JSON structure (including 'ok' and 'data.listGoods' with fields like nmID, sizes, discount) and pagination behavior (limit <=1000, offset). This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's output and constraints. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. It then lists parameters and return format in a structured, scannable way. Every sentence provides useful information without fluff. The format is efficient for an agent to parse and act upon.

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 read-only get tool, the description is complete: it states the purpose, lists all parameters with constraints, and describes the return format. The output schema is essentially embedded in the description, covering what the agent needs to know to call and interpret results. No critical information is missing for a straightforward read operation.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so clearly: limit with a max constraint (<=1000), offset as pagination offset, and filter_nm_id as an optional single nmID. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only provides types and defaults. The description clarifies the purpose and constraints of each parameter, though it doesn't elaborate on what nmID represents, which is a minor gap given domain context.

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: 'Get current prices and discounts for products'. It identifies the specific API ('Discounts-Prices API') and the resource (products). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wb_set_price (which sets prices) and other get tools (e.g., wb_get_sales, wb_get_stocks) that target different resources. The verb 'Get' and resource 'prices and discounts' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explains how to use the tool via parameters and return format but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives. While the read-only nature and resource scope are clear, there is no direct mention of when not to use it or when a sibling like wb_set_price would be appropriate. The usage context is implied but not stated explicitly, leaving the agent to infer selection based on the tool name and siblings.

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