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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are freshness-stamped and billing is credit-based with 'no data = no charge', which an agent needs to set expectations about cost and staleness.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then filter behavior, then freshness and cost. Every clause carries information; 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 carries the return-value burden and does so ('min/max/avg/median plus recent product samples... freshness-stamped'). All three parameters are covered by the schema. Only the absence of explicit sibling routing keeps it short of complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so domain, query, and limit are fully documented in the schema. The description corroborates two of them ('product-name query', 'recent product samples') but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 per the high-coverage rule.

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 specific resource (price statistics: min/max/avg/median plus recent product samples) scoped to a brand. It's clearly distinct from adjacent siblings like get_most_discounted_products and get_discount_frequency_and_depth, but it never names or contrasts with any sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 mention of an optional product-name filter implies how the tool is typically scoped, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. brand must be tracked), and no routing to alternative pricing tools. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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