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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that data is 'frozen in a monthly edition' (implying non-real-time) and are medians, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, response format, or limitations beyond the monthly update. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the core resource and nature, the second gives a direct usage example. It is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what (median drink prices), where (Turkey and districts), and when (monthly edition). It does not specify the exact return structure, but for a simple index that is acceptable. The usage example also reinforces completeness. A minor gap is not describing the output format, but it's not critical.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100%. Per calibration, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning (there is nothing to add), which is appropriate; no further explanation is needed.

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 clearly states the tool provides the published Vahada Bira Endeksi, which is a monthly frozen set of median drink prices for Turkey and covered districts. It also gives a concrete usage example ('what does a beer cost in Turkey'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from live price tools like cheapest_drinks or venue_prices.

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 description explicitly says 'Use for...' with a specific query, giving clear guidance on when to call this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast it with siblings like cheapest_drinks or happy_hours_now, so it lacks exclusions but provides a clear usage context.

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