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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it discloses the conditional priceLadder (only on tech gadgets, power bank, USB drive, wireless charger, tote, polo shirt, T-shirt collections), the conditional guidance block (only for reviewed collections with detailedGuidance: true), price basis (AUD ex-GST at volume, MOQ separate), and locale gating of AU-only offers. It omits error behavior for invalid slugs, keeping it just shy of 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?

The core return content is front-loaded before the conditional clauses and the routing advice. It is dense and exceptionally long, but each clause carries distinct information (conditional fields, audience use cases, currency scope), so little is wasted.

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 returns, and it does so thoroughly: the three pick tiers, pricing basis, FAQs, conditional guidance fields, and conditional priceLadder. For a two-parameter read tool this is complete enough to call correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the locale enum values and defaults. The description restates the slug provenance and adds a currency/locale note, but that is largely output semantics rather than parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific resource (a collection) and enumerates precisely what it returns: three named picks (lowest-priced, fastest-to-brand, premium for executives), From price semantics, URL, buyer FAQs, and conditional priceLadder. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing to get_collections for discovery and get_product/get_quote for local currency.

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 states when to use it ('precise briefs such as drawstring bags, coffee roasters...'), names the discovery tool for slugs (get_collections), and routes to get_product or get_quote for local currency. Explicit when-to-use plus named alternatives.

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