merit_get_price

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a read operation through 'Get' and notes date-dependent validity, but it does not describe response format, error behavior, authentication needs, or what happens when customer identification is omitted.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears first, followed by the endpoint in parentheses and the key required/alternate parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place without filler.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what the response contains, how currency and UOM are handled, or how this tool differs from the related price list/send tools in the sibling set. An agent would lack complete guidance for a correct invocation.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by clarifying that customerId, custName, or custRegNo are alternatives for identifying a customer. However, it leaves uomName and currencyCode completely unexplained, and the schema itself also lacks descriptions for them.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the valid sales price for a customer on a date.' It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like merit_list_prices or merit_send_prices, but the scope is specific enough to make the purpose largely self-evident.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many price-related sibling tools. The only usage instruction is parameter-level ('itemCode and docDate are required; provide customerId, or custName / custRegNo'), which does not help an agent choose among alternatives.

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