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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, closed-domain read. The description adds the useful prerequisite that it operates on an 'exact product', matching the slug requirement, but says nothing about the shape, span, or pagination of the dated series it returns.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and the resource with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It is missing any indication of what the returned history looks like (dates, amounts, unit or currency), which the absent output schema leaves entirely to inference.

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 100% and the single slug parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its provenance from list_polish_fair_price_products. The description adds only the qualifier 'exact product', so the schema is doing the heavy lifting and 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 concrete verb ('Get') and resource ('dated personal estimates of what Bahdan Hal would pay'), so the agent knows this returns a historical series rather than a single value. It separates itself implicitly from get_polish_fair_price_product via 'dated' and 'history', but it never names that sibling, so the 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?

There is no when-to-use statement and no exclusions. The word 'history' hints at a trend-over-time use case, but the description never says when to prefer this over get_polish_fair_price_product (the current estimate) or list_polish_fair_price_products, which is the key routing decision an agent faces here.

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