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 meaningful behavioral traits: the legal provenance of each row set (Perbadan Bapanas 5/2024, Kepgub 801/2024) and a data-currency warning that a later decision (299/2025) may have superseded the underlying regulation and that the change is unverified. That staleness/provenance disclosure is high-value. It still omits return shape, ordering, and error behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Information is front-loaded: the resource and scope come first, followed by the caveat. It is a single dense sentence with no filler, though the two-part regulatory citation makes it slightly run-on and harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 filter-only read lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the two things the structured fields cannot: the jurisdictional limits (LPG 3 kg only for Jawa Timur, rice by wilayah) and the currency caveat. It is complete enough to call safely, with only return-format details absent, which the lack of an output schema would normally warrant mentioning.

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% and the enum on commodity is self-explanatory, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'by wilayah' loosely echoes the region filter but adds no matching syntax or granularity (e.g. exact region strings) beyond what the schema already states.

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 the concrete resource (HET / price ceilings) and the exact commodities and jurisdictions it covers (beras medium & premium by wilayah, LPG 3 kg in Jawa Timur), which is enough to distinguish it from market-price siblings like get_food_prices_latest or get_fuel_prices. It is essentially a noun phrase without a verb, so the action is implied rather than stated, but the resource and scope are unmistakable.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement and no alternative sibling is named for comparison, so the agent must infer usage from the commodity/region scope. The one genuine piece of routing guidance is a negative one: 'do not treat these rows as current', which tells the agent when the output should not be relied on, partially compensating for the missing positive guidance.

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