ghl_product_price_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful auth context beyond the annotations: requires an Agency or Sub-Account token and needs the products/prices.readonly OAuth scope. It doesn't describe the response shape, keeping it from a 5.

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 title is front-loaded, and the endpoint/token/scope lines are valuable. However, the title is effectively repeated twice ('Get Price by ID for a Product' and 'The "Get Price by ID for a Product" API allows...') and the 'fetch details for a single price' sentence restates the same idea, adding redundancy that dilutes the structure.

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 simple read-by-ID tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, endpoint, auth requirements, and OAuth scope, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. Only the return payload shape is unspecified, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 all three parameters (priceId, productId, locationId) are already documented in the schema. The description restates price ID and product ID but doesn't add syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 verb (get/retrieve) and resource (a single price associated with a product), plus the exact endpoint GET /products/{productId}/price/{priceId}. This makes it trivially distinguishable from siblings like ghl_product_price_list, ghl_product_price_create, update, and delete.

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?

Explicitly says to use it to fetch a single price by price ID and product ID, which implies the when-to-use context (single lookup vs. listing). It doesn't explicitly name the alternative (ghl_product_price_list) or state exclusions, so it stops just short of a 5.

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