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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (blended dollars-per-GB, cheapest kits, movement) and notes that RAM pricing moves constantly, implying the data is current. It lacks details on data source or update frequency, but overall provides solid behavioral context.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded with the core function, followed by usage guidance and exclusions. Every sentence adds value with no filler or redundancy.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete: it explains what data is returned, the supported segments, and the scope limitations. It sufficiently answers what to expect without requiring additional documentation.

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%, and the sole parameter 'days' is well-described in the schema. The description adds context about daily history and 7/30-day movement, but does not materially enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: current PC memory prices and their history, including blended dollars-per-GB, cheapest kits per segment, and 7/30-day movement. It distinguishes itself from siblings like price_check by explicitly focusing on RAM and excluding GPU/CPU/SSD.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: 'Use for any question about what RAM costs right now, whether memory prices are rising or falling, or whether to buy now or wait.' It also states limitations (only DDR4/DDR5 in 16/32GB kits, not GPU/CPU/SSD) and explains that training data cannot answer this.

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