search_prices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful details like max_results caps and the exact-match semantics of arm_sku_name, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, how results are returned, or potential rate limits/side effects. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary followed by a clean Args list. Every line is informative, using brief but concrete examples, with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for an 8-parameter search tool.

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?

The description thoroughly documents all parameters and the main purpose, and an output schema exists so return specifics are not needed. However, it lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools (e.g., estimate_cost, compare_regions), which is a notable gap given the sibling set and absence of annotations.

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 0%, but the description compensates richly. Every parameter is documented with examples and clarifications (e.g., 'Use arm_sku_name for exact VM matching', price_type options, currency examples). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema properties.

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 'Search Azure retail prices by service, region, SKU, or product name' — a specific verb and resource with explicit filter criteria. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (estimate_cost, list_services, etc.) by focusing on searching prices rather than estimating, listing, or comparing.

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 estimate_cost or compare_regions. The description explains what the tool does but does not offer exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool recommendations, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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