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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the data comes from official price-transparency files, prices are 'current' shelf prices, and results are sorted cheapest first — useful behavioral traits for interpreting output.

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, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then search mode, then result ordering. Nothing redundant and every sentence carries information an agent would use.

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?

With no output schema, the description does cover the essentials — source, freshness, search modes, sort order — which is enough to call the tool correctly. It stops short of describing result fields (e.g. price vs. unit price, product metadata) that an agent might need to interpret the response.

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 67% and the description largely restates what the schema already says (Hebrew name or barcode for query, branch-specific store). The Hebrew example adds a little practical value, but the limit parameter is undocumented in both places, so the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 (shelf prices at a Shufersal branch) plus the data source (official price-transparency files) and result ordering. It's clearly a price-lookup tool, distinct in intent from grocery_find_stores, though it never names that sibling explicitly — the differentiation only surfaces via the store_id schema description.

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 implies how to search (Hebrew product name like 'חלב 3%' or barcode) and that a specific branch is required, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the grocery_find_stores prerequisite or what happens if the query is ambiguous. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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