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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully clarifies fee semantics (precio_base excludes payment fees; all-time low and average are fee-free) and prescribes an output citation format, going beyond the schema. It does not address permissions, rate limits, or pagination, which is a gap for an unannotated read tool.

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 definition is compact and front-loads the resource before the operational detail. The instruction about how to cite two prices is slightly digressive but still earns its place as behavior guidance.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields and their fee semantics, so an agent knows what to expect. A touch more on defaults/limits (e.g., default limit) would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents lang, type, limit, and platform, making 3 the baseline. The description implicitly echoes the type parameter (all-time low / below usual) but adds no syntax or enum guidance beyond 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?

States a specific resource (games currently at all-time low or below their usual price) and the exact fields returned (store, precio_base, precio_con_tasas), distinguishing it from siblings like get_price_history and get_best_price. An agent can tell what this returns without opening any schema.

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?

"Usalo cuando pregunten que ofertas hay hoy" gives an explicit trigger condition for the tool. However, it does not name or exclude alternatives (e.g., get_best_price for a single game), so the boundary with siblings is left to inference.

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