vtex_get_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output includes (e.g., base price, discounts). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. For a simple read tool, it's passable but could be more helpful by adding context like what price data is returned or when to use alternatives.

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%, with the single parameter 'skuId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the SKU is used to fetch price information, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 when the 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 'Get price information for a SKU' clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('price information for a SKU'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'vtex_get_computed_price' by focusing on a specific SKU rather than computed pricing, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vtex_get_computed_price' or 'vtex_list_prices'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid SKU ID, or when this tool is appropriate compared to other price-related tools in the sibling list.

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