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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a good job: it discloses that the call returns current prices plus summary statistics and low windows. It does not mention response shape or freshness caveats, but the core behavior is clear.

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 with no filler; the output summary is front-loaded and the purpose/usage tag is concise.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description names the key return values and the intended decision. It is sufficiently complete to invoke correctly, though it leaves minor details like result formatting to inference.

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?

The schema already documents product_id fully as 'canonical product uuid, from search_products', so parameter coverage is 100%. The description adds only the 'one product' scope and the purpose, which is minor on top of 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 states exactly what the tool returns: current retailer prices, min/max/median, and 30/90-day lows, tied to one product. The closing phrase 'The single call to answer...' differentiates it from siblings like get_current_prices and get_price_history.

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?

The 'single call to answer' line gives a clear when-to-use signal for the price-goodness question. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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