apple_get_pricing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add one real behavioral fact – 'fully paginated' plus 'complete' signals the tool aggregates all pages so the caller need not loop – which is genuinely useful. But it omits read-only confirmation, auth/permission requirements, and any note about response size or ordering for what could be a large multi-collection payload.

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 preamble, which is the right shape. It is slightly padded: 'complete', 'fully paginated', and 'collections' stack overlapping emphasis on the same point.

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 tool with one fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it never explains what a 'price schedule' contains or how the manual and automatic collections differ, which is the main thing an agent needs to interpret the result.

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 single appId parameter is documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about appId format or scope (e.g., whether it's the numeric App Store Connect ID).

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: retrieves the app's price schedule along with manual and automatic price collections. This is meaningfully more specific than a bare 'get pricing', though it never names the closely related siblings (apple_list_app_price_points, apple_set_price) that an agent would need to distinguish it from.

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 when-to-use guidance at all. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to call this instead of apple_list_app_price_points or apple_get_iap_price_points, nor what prerequisites (app ID ownership, pricing configured) exist.

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