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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It clearly explains how the tool compares prices, notes the strength for RAM (per-GB daily index), discloses the fallback to matching deal headlines for other parts, and states it returns 'insufficient_data' rather than guessing. This is excellent transparency about limitations and behavior.

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 three sentences long and every sentence earns its place. It fronts the primary purpose, then provides usage guidance, then discloses limitations. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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's simplicity (2 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, how it behaves with different inputs, and what it returns. It is complete without being verbose.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds value by connecting the 'description' parameter to the tool's logic: RAM is compared per-GB against the daily index, while other parts match deal headlines. This gives the agent context to craft better parameter values beyond the schema's generic description.

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 uses a specific verb 'judge' and names the resource (asking price for a PC part). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like ram_price_index (which likely just provides the index) and find_deals (which finds deals). The purpose is unmistakable.

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 states when to use the tool: 'when someone asks is $X a good price for Y or wants a listing sanity-checked.' It also clarifies fallback behavior for non-RAM parts and returns insufficient_data rather than guessing. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the usage context is clear.

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