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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that no key is needed and that the data is diffed between daily catalog syncs, but it does not describe return structure, pagination behavior, or whether limit constrains results.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a concrete usage example. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 7-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers origin, default window, auth, and one type example. It still leaves gaps around output shape, limit behavior, and some parameter meanings.

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 coverage is 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds a practical example for type and clarifies the default time window, but it does not explain modality, servable, or limit semantics beyond 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 clearly identifies a price-change feed and specifies the resources covered: models whose price went down/up or were added/removed since a date. It is specific enough to distinguish this from a general model listing, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

It gives one concrete usage cue: use type=price_down to find models that just got cheaper. However, it does not explain when to use this instead of list_models or other catalog tools, nor does it state exclusions or broader usage conditions.

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