get_prices

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 mentions that the tool 'Returns detailed pricing information with conditions and validity,' which gives some indication of output behavior. However, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence establishes the core purpose and scope, while the second describes the return value. There's no unnecessary verbiage or repetition. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by mentioning the key parameters (origin/destination) that are required.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return value but lacks important context about behavioral characteristics, error handling, and usage guidelines. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally provide more detail about the return format, but it only gives a high-level overview ('detailed pricing information with conditions and validity').

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the schema - it mentions 'different travel classes, ticket types, and discounts' which corresponds to some parameters but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns. With complete schema documentation, the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get price information for domestic train journeys' with specific details about what's included (travel classes, ticket types, discounts). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_arrivals or get_departures by focusing on pricing rather than schedule information. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential pricing-related siblings that might exist in other contexts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions what the tool does, it doesn't indicate scenarios where this tool is appropriate versus other tools like get_travel_advice (which might also include pricing) or when not to use it. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with sibling tools.

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