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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the data comes from hourly readings of three named suppliers and includes before/after prices and percentage/amount deltas. It stops short of describing pagination or time-window limits.

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?

A single long sentence that front-loads the data source but buries the two operating modes mid-sentence. No wasted sentences, but the clause-dense construction ('the price changes the site's hourly readings ... attribute to the supplier') costs readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does specify the payload shape: before/after prices per product and same-percentage/amount moves. That is adequate for a two-param read tool whose annotations cover safety, though time-window and sorting behavior remain unstated.

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 schema already defines both parameters, and the description largely restates them ('supplier to narrow it', 'product for its price history'). No additional syntax, format, or edge-case nuance (e.g., slug vs. name matching behavior) is offered.

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?

Names the resource (print-on-demand price changes from Printful/Printify/Gelato supplier readings) and distinguishes two modes: supplier-wide changes vs. a single product's price history. The sentence is grammatically convoluted ('the price changes the site's hourly readings ... attribute to the supplier'), which slightly obscures the verb, but the scope is clear and separable from siblings like get_product_costs.

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 tells the agent how the parameters behave ('Name a supplier to narrow it, or a product for its price history at each supplier') but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with siblings such as compare_suppliers or get_product_costs. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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