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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the lower bar applies. The description adds real operational context beyond them: results are recorded/delivered retail prices, Amazon and unknown-shipping data are absent, and partial coverage is legitimate rather than empty. It does not discuss rate limits or result volume, but the output schema covers return shape.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: selection guidance first, then coverage caveats. The multilingual keyword list ("Preisentwicklung") is mildly redundant for an agent but short. No sentence is wasted, though the piece reads as a run of fragments rather than a structured statement.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; the description instead addresses the pitfalls that matter (partial data, excluded sources, wrong-valuation substitute). Minor gap: set_id semantics and the language parameter get no mention, and currency is described but derived implicitly from market.

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 75% and already documents days, market, and language well, including the 365-for-12-months guidance the description repeats. The description adds only the market/currency linkage (a concept with no corresponding parameter) and says nothing about set_id or language. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Read recorded delivered retailer prices") plus the scoping dimensions (selected market and currency), and explicitly contrasts with the sibling concern by saying collector market valuations must not be substituted. An agent can distinguish this from get_price_history without opening either schema.

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?

Declares itself first choice, gives a concrete parameter recipe ("Use days 365 for the last 12 months"), tells the agent how to handle partial coverage, and states exclusions (Amazon, unknown shipping) and the anti-pattern (collector valuations). When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both present.

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