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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely non-structured context in the form of a data-freshness window (<=96h) and a source restriction to verified public offers. It does not disclose aggregation behavior such as grouping, sample-size minimums, or what happens when no offers match, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 dense sentence with the core operation and its scope front-loaded, followed by the optional filters. Every clause earns its place and there is no boilerplate or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it only says "statistics" without naming the metrics, units, or whether results are grouped by metal/format. For a read-only two-param aggregate tool the scope description is adequate, but the agent cannot anticipate the response shape.

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 both parameters are enumerated with their own descriptions, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description restates the two filter dimensions and the "maps to canonical productFormat" detail, but adds no new meaning such as default behavior for the empty-string enum value or how multiple filters combine.

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 uses a specific verb ("Aggregate") with a clearly bounded resource ("premium-over-spot and delivered-price statistics") and scopes the data to fresh (<=96h) verified public offers. An agent can tell this is an aggregation/statistics tool rather than a raw-price tool, though no sibling (e.g. get_live_spot_prices, get_dealer_price_position) is named to sharpen the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied through the phrase "optionally filtered by metal and product format," which tells the agent the filters exist but not when to reach for this tool over its siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing, so the agent must infer the choice from the tool name.

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