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 when parameters are invalid. For a 10-parameter tool with 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 efficiently structured in two sentences that cover purpose and return value. There's no wasted language, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. While it could be slightly more detailed given the lack of annotations, what's present is well-organized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., how routeId interacts with station parameters), doesn't mention error conditions or validation rules, and provides minimal guidance on the return format beyond 'detailed pricing information.' Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description should do more to help an agent understand how to use this tool effectively.

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 description mentions 'different travel classes, ticket types, and discounts' which maps to some parameters (travelClass, travelType, isJointJourney). However, with 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions, providing only high-level context without additional syntax or format details.

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 from sibling tools like get_arrivals or get_departures by focusing on pricing rather than schedules or status. 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 sibling tools like get_travel_advice might include pricing information, there's no explicit comparison or context about when this specific pricing tool is preferred. The description mentions what the tool returns but not when it should be selected over other available tools.

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