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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context. It does so usefully by naming the three return components (model price, quick-sale price, current asking prices), which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of any failure behavior, e.g. what happens for an unrecognized item or an unsupported site.

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?

Three tight sentences: usage trigger and scope first, then outputs, then exclusions. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by summarizing the returned price set, and the schema fully documents all three parameters. Only marginal gaps remain, such as edge-case behavior for unknown items or regions and whether condition materially shifts the estimate.

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% with per-parameter descriptions including the allowed site codes and currency implication, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond it, which is the expected baseline when the schema is complete.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource (price a second-hand item to list on Vinted) and describes the outputs it returns. It also explicitly separates itself from check_resale_price (buying) and check_listing_text (writing), so siblings are clearly delimited.

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?

Gives explicit triggers (seller asks what price to list at, or how fast it will sell at a price) and explicit exclusions with named alternatives for both the buying and listing-text cases. Nothing is left to inference.

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