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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It explains that results are cheapest tracked listings with unit pricing, pack size, and median gap, but it omits freshness, currency, geography, shipping/tax inclusion, and whether 'cheapest' is ranked by unit price or pack total.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by concrete use cases. The unit examples earn their place by clarifying the pricing basis.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return contents and use cases. It falls short of full completeness because it does not differentiate from sibling tools or disclose source, freshness, and pricing caveats.

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 query and limit. The description adds context that query is a product description and results are cheapest matches, but it does not add parameter behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 retrieval operation: cheapest tracked listings matching a product description, priced per unit, with pack size and median gap. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like category_price or bigger_pack.

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?

It gives explicit usage scenarios: 'what should X cost' and 'is this a good price.' However, it does not state when not to use it or point to alternatives such as category_price or bigger_pack.

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