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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that these are regulated ceilings with named legal bases (Bapanas 299/2025, Kepgub 801/2024) and that LPG coverage is limited to Jawa Timur, which is genuine non-obvious context. It says nothing about update cadence, data freshness, currency/units, or return structure.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core meaning ('Harga eceran tertinggi') before the commodity and regional qualifiers. The two legal citations are dense but arguably earn their place as the source of the ceilings; the Indonesian/English mixing slightly hurts readability.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description should carry return-value information, but it never states what is returned (price per commodity/region), in what unit, or over what period. Scope coverage is decent; a low-complexity 2-optional-param lookup, but return semantics remain undocumented.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema (region as a partial-name match, commodity with an enum and 'omit for all'). The description adds no param-level detail beyond restating the commodity and region scope, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific resource (Harga Eceran Tertinggi / price ceilings), the commodities covered (beras medium, beras premium, LPG 3 kg), and the geographic scope (by wilayah, with LPG limited to Jawa Timur). It expands the jargon acronym, which an agent cannot infer from the name alone. It does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings like get_food_prices_latest or get_food_price_series, so it misses the top band.

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 statement of when to call this tool versus get_food_prices_latest, get_food_price_series, or list_food_commodities, and no prerequisites are given. The regulatory citations imply a lookup of government-set ceilings rather than market prices, but that distinction is left for the agent to infer.

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