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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that results are barcodes with lowest/highest shelf price across tracked chains, which explains the cross-chain aggregation. This is useful beyond the annotations, though the exact result structure isn't detailed.

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 sentences, front-loaded purpose, concrete examples, and a routing directive. No filler and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter lookup with strong annotations, the key usage context and downstream integration are covered. The main omission is a fuller return shape, but since no output schema exists, the description gives enough for an agent to know what it will get.

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?

The schema only documents query, and coverage is 50%. The description adds Hebrew inputs and concrete examples for query, which helps, but the limit parameter remains undocumented by both schema and description; its behavior is only inferable from its name/default.

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 precise search behavior (find by Hebrew name, brand, or barcode), the resource (Israeli supermarket products), and the return shape (barcodes with low/high shelf prices). It is clearly distinguished from the sibling price/basket/ranking tools.

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 tells the agent to feed the resulting barcode into get_product_prices or compare_basket, establishing this tool as the product-lookup entry point. It does not explicitly contrast with rank_chains or state a negative case, but the routing is clear enough.

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