get_item_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 states the tool 'Get item prices', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, what happens if the item isn't found, or any rate limits. The example for 'price_list' adds minimal context, but key behavioral traits like error handling or response format are missing.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by parameter details. The two sentences earn their place by clarifying the tool's function and parameters, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the 'Args' section more seamlessly into the flow.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is somewhat complete. It covers the purpose and parameters, but lacks behavioral context like error handling or usage guidelines. The presence of an output schema means return values needn't be explained, but overall, it's adequate with clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description compensates by explaining 'item_code' as 'Item code to look up' and 'price_list' as 'Optional price list name to filter (e.g. "Standard Selling")', adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't cover constraints like valid formats or the effect of null values, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'item prices from Item Price records', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_document' or 'get_list_with_summary' that might also retrieve price-related data, though the focus on 'Item Price records' provides some distinction.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether the item must exist or if authentication is needed, and doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_document' that might retrieve similar data. This leaves the agent without explicit usage instructions.

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