Get product pricing

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context about covering all price point types, but it does not disclose behavioral details such as return shape, pagination, or what happens when a product has no configured price points.

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?

Two sentences, both purposeful: the first defines the tool's scope and the second gives the practical rationale for using it. No filler or redundant restatement of the title or 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?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with only two documented parameters, this is nearly complete. With no output schema, an agent might still want a hint about the response structure, but the description's scope statement and annotations make invocation safe and unambiguous.

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 product_id and account. The description adds meaning around what the tool returns (one-time, split pay, subscription prices) and why it matters, but it does not add syntax or parameter-format details beyond the schema.

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 names a specific resource (product pricing) and a precise verb (get), and expands the scope to 'every price point configured on a product: one-time, split pay and subscription.' It distinguishes itself from the simpler get_product by explicitly stating the headline price is not the only thing customers can pay.

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?

It gives an explicit use trigger: 'read this before quoting what something costs.' It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_product or get_bump_pricing, but the sibling context and the focus on a product's full pricing structure make the intended usage clear.

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