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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose genuinely non-obvious behavior: the tradisional-first fallback when a traditional price exists, the caveat that traditional markets cover fewer provinces, and the one-row-per-province-and-commodity shape. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and result-size/pagination behavior, so it is strong but not complete.

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 core purpose is front-loaded and the sentences are dense but purposeful, moving from what it returns to default behavior to parameter effects. Some redundancy with the schema descriptions (market precedence, month restrictions) costs a point, but 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does: price in Rp/kg, province-and-commodity rows, each row naming its market and day. The remaining gap is the missing pointer to the sibling series tool for the monthly mode.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents month, market, and commodity, including the "with month, groups only" restriction. The description largely restates those semantics ("Filter by commodity, province and market") rather than adding format or edge-case detail beyond them.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (get), resource (PIHPS Nasional staple-food price), unit (Rp/kg), and granularity (per province, newest observation day), plus stated coverage of 10 groups and 21 items. An agent can distinguish this from get_food_price_series and get_het_prices without opening any schema, and the later clause about the monthly series further separates the two modes.

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 conditional guidance for parameters ("Pass market for one market only", "With month ... traditional markets only"), which implies usage but never states when to prefer this tool over get_food_price_series or get_het_prices. The monthly-series mode in particular overlaps with a sibling and is not routed explicitly, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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