Create a price

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that amounts are immutable and that test keys are refused with a live key, both operationally important. The annotations already cover readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false, so the added constraints are meaningful; the only gap is that the created object's return shape is not described.

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 dense but well organized: the model list is front-loaded and the per-model required-field mapping follows immediately. It is appropriately sized for a 12-parameter nested tool, though there is minor overlap between the model enumeration and the body-requirements paragraph.

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 complex creation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description supplies the critical conditional requirements, immutability rule, and key restriction. It leaves the response format and some optional-field semantics to the schema, which is acceptable given the schema's documentation.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage across 12 parameters, the description carries important weight by mapping each pricing model to its required fields (e.g., fixed_term needs term_days, subscription needs recurring), which the flat schema cannot express. It does not explain optional parameters like refunds, metadata, or nickname details, but those are partially documented in the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Create a price') and enumerates the six supported pricing models, which is far more than a tautology. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as update_price or list_prices, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the immutability sentence.

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?

Usage is implied through the per-model requirements and the note that amounts are immutable, which tells the agent to create a new price rather than modify one. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like update_price or explain when to prefer this tool over creating a checkout session or subscription.

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