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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral detail annotations cannot: the 90-day window, weekly sampling granularity, and the inclusion of sold-listing data, which materially shapes what the agent should expect.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The data payload is front-loaded and the use cases follow, so an agent gets scope and applicability immediately.

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 usefully characterizes the return content (weekly points, sold listings, current prices), which is the important burden here. Minor gaps remain around units/currency and behavior when the slug is unknown, but the essentials are present.

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?

There is one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains it is a pedal slug sourced from search_pedals with an example. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the 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 names a specific resource (price history for a pedal) and enumerates the payload: new/used price movement over 90 days, sold used listings, and current prices. That is far more specific than the title, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling get_pedal, which could also surface price data.

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 concrete user-intent triggers ('is this a good price', 'should I buy used'), which tells the agent when this tool is the right call. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing at an alternative sibling for raw spec/description lookups.

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