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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses ordering ('newest first'), event kinds, and returned fields, but does not state read-only safety, pagination behavior, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 a single dense sentence with front-loaded scope, followed by precise parameter semantics. Every clause (event kinds, returned fields, ordering, filters) earns its place with 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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how results are ordered, and how to filter. The remaining gap is explicit usage guidance versus sibling tools, which is minor but noticeable.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'since' as an ISO date and 'kind' as a filter to one kind, and the enumerated event types give concrete expected values for 'kind', making both parameters meaningfully clear.

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 states a specific resource and behavior: 'Priced events in first-party price lists, newest first,' and enumerates the event kinds (launch, price_cut, price_increase, removed). It is clear what the tool returns and how results are ordered, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like model_price or index_series.

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 implied by the content (price change events), but the description offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as model_price or index_series. An agent can infer this is for change history, but routing is left largely to inference.

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