get-price-lists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it omits that this is a read-only, paginated operation. Worse, 'Get all price lists' is misleading given the schema's first parameter (default 25, max 50) means results are capped — an agent may assume it received the complete set.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned-field enumeration is compact and useful. Slightly over-committed by the word 'all' relative to the paginated schema.

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 listing of returned fields partially compensates for the missing output schema, which is helpful. However, for a read tool with zero annotations, the absence of pagination behavior, safety profile, and scope leaves real gaps.

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% and the single optional 'first' parameter is fully documented with default and bounds. The description adds nothing about the limit/cursor semantics, so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get all price lists') and enumerates the returned facets (currency, fixed/relative adjustments, catalog context). No sibling tool covers price lists, so no differentiation is required, but it stops short of explaining scope (e.g. all markets vs. shop default).

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 statement of when to call this versus other catalog-listing tools (get-products, get-markets, get-collections), nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only usage signal is implied by the verb 'Get'.

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