get_prices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other useful details such as response format, whether results are paginated, or any requirements. For a simple getter, this baseline is acceptable but not rich.

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 superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately understandable. There is no waste, so it earns a top score.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain what the returned prices look like, whether the parameters are optional (schema shows none required), or how results are structured. This is a notable gap for a tool with two filter parameters, making it incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate behavior.

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%: both parameters (country ID and service code) have descriptions in the schema. The description's 'by country' adds marginal context that aligns with the country parameter but does not provide any new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 prices for services by country' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('prices') with qualifiers ('services by country'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_balance or get_status, which address different data. The purpose 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?

The description implies usage: call when you need prices for services filtered by country. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternative tools (e.g., get_services or get_countries). The implied context is enough for a basic rating, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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