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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations cannot: a pagination contract (nextCursor until isDone) and an important data-integrity caveat about gaps representing missing evidence. Return-record shape is still unspecified.

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 dense sentences with zero filler. The scope statement is front-loaded and the operational caveat follows immediately, so every clause earns its place.

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 partially compensates by naming nextCursor and isDone and explaining how to interpret gaps. Given five parameters and low schema coverage, more detail on filtering (year, limit) would help, but the core read-and-page contract is fully specified.

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 only 40%, so the description carries some burden. It hints at the cursor mechanism (nextCursor) and the page boundary, but year, limit, and the relationship between cursor and the returned nextCursor are not clarified; fuel and region semantics are left to the schema's own enum descriptions.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read a bounded page of verified historical official fuel prices') with meaningful qualifiers (bounded, verified, historical, official). It clearly implies a paged history read distinct from a current-price sibling, but it never names get_fuel_prices or find_fuel_articles to make the routing explicit.

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?

'Follow nextCursor until isDone' gives concrete operational guidance for consuming the tool, and 'gaps mean missing evidence, not unchanged prices' tells the agent how to interpret results. It stops short of saying when to choose this over get_fuel_prices, so it lacks explicit alternatives.

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