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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses important traits: prices are stored/advertised rather than verified, include stock observations and affiliate links, and carry observed_at/expires_at with an expiry quoting rule. It does not cover read-only status, auth, or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, differentiation second, expiry caveat third. Every sentence adds a distinct constraint and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers what is returned, how fresh it is, and when to prefer an alternative. It still leaves the exact return shape and any pagination/error behavior unspecified, so it is not quite fully complete.

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 single required parameter is fully documented in the schema as a canonical product uuid from search_products. The description only restates 'one canonical product' and adds no syntax, format, or sourcing detail 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 it returns latest stored advertised prices for one canonical product, with stock observations and stored affiliate links. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_verified_offer, making the scope and resource clear enough to separate it from siblings.

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 tells the agent to use get_verified_offer when a marketplace source ID is known and warns that these are not verified buyable offers. It also adds a quoting constraint ('do not quote after expires_at'), giving clear when/when-not context.

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