M.Video price info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by noting that monetary values are returned in kopecks and uses the verb 'Read' which implies a non-destructive operation. However, it omits details about pagination, authentication, rate limits, or potential error conditions.

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, tightly written sentence that leads with the action verb and includes the most critical filtering detail. There is no redundant or irrelevant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides only the essentials: what it reads and the unit of monetary values. It does not clarify whether the response is a list or single item, how pagination works, or what fields are returned. This leaves notable gaps for an agent attempting to fully understand the tool's 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?

The input schema has zero description coverage (0%), so the description must compensate. It effectively clarifies that product_id and offer_id serve as filters, but it does not explain the limit and cursor parameters, which likely control pagination. This is a partial compensation for low schema coverage.

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 'Read prices' with specific filter parameters (product_id and/or offer_id), which directly distinguishes it from the sibling mvideo_price_update tool. The verb is specific, the resource is unambiguous, and the scope is explicit.

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 when price data is needed, but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling tool references are provided, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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