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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that the id must originate from search (implying ids are not authorable by the agent), but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or what happens with an unknown or stale id.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the positive case front-loaded and the exclusion last. 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers selection, the id source, and the shape of the return ('every tracked store price'). Minor remaining gap: no note on what a not-found or untracked game yields, which matters slightly more because there is no output schema to clarify.

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 0% and the single 'id' property is an unannotated string, so the description carries the full burden. It does so well by giving provenance ('an id returned from search') and a concrete format example ('game:236717'), which is exactly the missing information an agent needs to construct the call.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Fetch every tracked store price for one game'. The scope ('every tracked store', 'one game') plus the id provenance makes it distinguishable from find_best_offer and search without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly sequences the tool ('Use it only after search') and names the correct alternative for the name-based case ('For a game known by name, use find_best_offer instead'). Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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