List price lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful domain context (what 'sales' and 'override' price lists mean) and notes that supplying price_list_id returns the list with all its prices, but it says nothing about pagination behavior, default result counts, or ordering despite limit/offset being present.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the domain definitions are front-loaded before the price_list_id behavior. It is economically sized for the information it carries, though the parenthetical example is slightly verbose.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries return-shape burden; it partially meets this by noting that price_list_id returns the list with all its prices. But the default listing response, q/status filtering, and pagination semantics are unaddressed, leaving gaps for a 5-parameter listing tool.

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 coverage is only 40%: limit and offset are documented in the schema itself, but q and status have no description anywhere. The description explains price_list_id's dual role (filter vs. single-fetch), which is real added value, but it leaves q and status semantics entirely unexplained. Partial compensation for a real gap.

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 states a specific resource (price lists) and clarifies that it covers two kinds -- sales (temporary discounts) and overrides (customer-group/B2B prices) -- which meaningfully distinguishes it from siblings like save_price_list and list_promotions. The implicit 'list' verb comes from the name, not the text, so it's clear but not maximally 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?

It implies a mode switch: pass price_list_id to fetch one list with its prices, otherwise list them. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over list_promotions, list_catalog, or get_product for pricing data, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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