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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses sort order, pence-denominated unit prices, and the row-level fields including 90-day low, sample count, and at-low/near-low verdict. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, but the 'get' naming and ranking description make that clear enough for this read-oriented tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core ranking behavior and followed by pricing units and row contents. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or 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?

For a three-parameter ranking tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior, sorting, units, and returned row fields. It omits some detail about category filtering and how 'near-low' is determined, but those are secondary given the rich input schema.

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 the schema already documents unit, limit, and category. The description adds useful rationale for why unit is required because the two scales cannot be compared, but it does not add further semantics for limit or category beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: rank tracked storage or memory by price per terabyte/gigabyte, cheapest first. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_price_verdict or get_price_index.

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 explains what the tool returns and why the unit parameter is required, but it gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_price_history or get_price_verdict. There are no stated exclusions or decision criteria for an agent choosing among the sibling tools.

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