[Read] Get app pricing

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the operation is read-only and adds valuable nuance about the isFree field being null when no schedule is configured. This goes beyond a simple 'get' but does not cover potential error conditions or authorization needs.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately signals 'Read-only' and then succinctly lists what is retrieved. Every word adds value, with no redundancy, 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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description provides a complete summary of return values, including the conditional null behavior of isFree. This compensates fully for the missing output schema and covers the essential contextual information an agent needs.

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 fully documents the appId parameter with its description, and the tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb 'Gets' and names the resource 'app pricing' with precise details about what is returned: schedule configured, base territory, and isFree status. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling asc_pricing_set_free by explicitly stating 'Read-only' and describing the read semantics.

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 'Read-only' prefix clearly indicates this tool is for reading pricing data, not modifying it, which provides clear context for when to use this tool versus the write-oriented sibling asc_pricing_set_free. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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