vtex_get_computed_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it 'gets' computed price, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential scope details (promotions and taxes) without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a read operation but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what the computed price includes (e.g., breakdowns), return format, or error conditions. For a tool that likely involves business logic (promotions/taxes), more context would help the agent use it correctly.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters (skuId, tradePolicy, regionId) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the computation includes promotions and taxes, which relates to output rather than inputs. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'computed price for a SKU', with specific scope about including promotions and taxes. It distinguishes from siblings like 'vtex_get_price' (which likely returns base price) by emphasizing computed/processed pricing. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative, keeping it at 4 rather than 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vtex_get_price' or 'vtex_get_sku'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, trade-offs, or specific scenarios where computed pricing is needed versus raw pricing. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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