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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: the drop thresholds, the 7-day window, the data source (own price history, not retailer 'was' prices), and that qualifying items must still be at the lower price. It omits return shape, ordering, and whether results are capped or paginated.

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?

Two sentences, both doing work, with the subject (price drops in the last 7 days) front-loaded ahead of the qualifying thresholds. Slightly dense because the criteria are packed into the second sentence, but there is no filler.

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 single-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the results represent and the strictness of the filter. It leaves the return fields and pagination/limit behavior unexplained, which is a moderate but not severe gap at this complexity level.

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?

One parameter ('limit') with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it as 'Max results, default 15'. The description adds nothing about the limit or how it interacts with the result set, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the documentation work.

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+resource with scope: 'price drops in the last 7 days on golf models GolfPrice AI tracks'. It also defines the qualifying criteria (≥£5 and 3%, still at the lower price), which makes the tool's domain unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_golf_price or search_golf_prices, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 defines the filter semantics ('genuine' drops, measured against GolfPrice AI's own history, 'never a retailer's was price'), which implicitly tells the agent this is a curated-deals view rather than a general lookup. However, it never states when to choose this over get_golf_price or search_golf_prices, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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