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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds value by disclosing that each returned price carries a source URL and the date it was read, which tells the agent results are provenance-bearing and time-stamped. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured fields, though it omits coverage/fallback behavior when no published price exists.

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, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and scope, with examples kept tight. Nothing repeats the schema or annotations.

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 read-only search with no output schema, the description does explain what a result contains (price, source URL, read date), which is useful. But it leaves the 'limit' parameter's effect and any result-count/pagination behavior unexplained, and doesn't say what happens when a city has no published prices.

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 50%: city and state are described in the schema, while query and limit are not. The description partly compensates for 'query' by giving domain examples ('haircut', 'oil change', 'bowling'), but says nothing about 'limit', its maximum, or how results are capped.

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 and resource ('searches published prices') scoped to a product/service across a city's businesses, with three concrete query examples that make the intent unmistakable. The resource noun ('prices') is distinct enough from the siblings (get_business, search_businesses, list_cities) that an agent can route correctly, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs price data for a specific locality. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternatives (e.g. search_businesses to discover businesses first, then this for prices).

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