get_pricing_offers

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds real behavior beyond them: the 365-day lookback, that a price change surfaces as a new period so comparisons are read period by period, and the meaning of connected=false. That is genuine added context.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and source, and the dense single sentence is mostly load-bearing. It is long and clause-heavy, approaching run-on, but little is wasted.

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 the full burden of explaining return values, and it does: current price fields, fixed-price periods with trial/subscription/conversion/revenue metrics, and offer codes with redemption counts. Combined with the annotations, an agent has what it needs to call and interpret it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the appId, country and product parameters are already documented ('narrow to one storefront', 'narrow to one product'). The description mentions per-product/per-country output but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (product prices and offer codes), the source (RevenueCat or Adapty webhook), and scope (one app, last 365 days). An agent can tell it is a read of pricing/offer data, though it does not explicitly name a sibling such as get_country_prices or get_revenue to bound it.

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 by the content and the 365-day window, so the agent can infer relevance, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no alternative named. The MID calibration penalized an equivalent lack of routing guidance.

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