ym_get_prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the cabinet-wide scope, the endpoint, pagination parameters, and the exact price fields returned. This is useful behavioral context beyond the structured metadata. No contradiction with the readOnlyHint is present; the mention of POST is an HTTP detail, not a mutation claim.

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 compact and logically structured: scope, endpoint, args, and return format. There is no filler, and the key return path is front-loaded. The noun-phrase opening is slightly awkward but does not hurt clarity.

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?

With an output schema present and every parameter explained, an agent has enough information to invoke this read-only tool correctly. The only missing context is explicit when-to-use guidance and any authentication caveats, but those are minor for a read getter with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already set.

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 carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It explains business_id as cabinet id, offer_ids as a comma-separated filter with empty meaning all, page_token as a continuation token, and limit as page size capped at 200. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 names the resource ('base prices for all shops of the cabinet') and the return shape ('result.offers[].price'), making it clear this is a read operation. The tool name ym_get_prices reinforces the purpose and distinguishes it from the sibling ym_set_price. It would be cleaner with an explicit 'Get' verb, but the intent is 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ym_set_price or other getters. The readOnlyHint and return structure imply viewing, but the description never states exclusions, prerequisites, or the preferred context. An agent must infer usage from the name and arguments.

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