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

With no annotations provided, the description does useful work by stating that the tool is read-only and free. It also discloses the returned verdict categories, though it does not explain data recency, permissions beyond read-only, or how the market range is tracked.

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 description is two tight sentences plus one example. The usage condition is front-loaded, followed by behavior and output, with no wasted wording.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers when to use it, what it compares, and the possible verdict values. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 the schema already defines both parameters. The description adds value with a concrete example showing that q is a detailed product query string and price is the asking price, clarifying intended input format beyond the terse schema labels.

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 states a specific verb and resource: compare an asking price against a tracked market range and return a deal verdict. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing the user-supplied asking price and the verdict output.

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 explicitly says to use this when the user has a specific asking price to judge, which is clear context. However, it does not name or contrast alternatives like get_worth, so an agent must infer when a different pricing tool is better.

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