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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output content (median/average spread plus examples), but it does not state the return format, whether the data is current or historical, or any limitations. This is adequate but leaves several behavioral details implicit.

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?

Two short sentences: the first defines the metric and output content, the second gives a concrete use case. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 zero-parameter information tool, the description is nearly sufficient: it states what is measured, what output to expect, and when to use it. It does not explicitly describe the response format, but with no input parameters and no output schema, the remaining gap is minor.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything; the description adds domain context by specifying 'same product' and 'Swedish stores,' which helps the agent understand the tool's scope even though no arguments are needed. The baseline of 4 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 clearly defines price_spread as an index of how much prices for the same product vary across Swedish stores, including median/average spread and examples. This is specific and non-tautological, but it lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.

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?

The phrase 'Bra för "spelar det roll var jag handlar?"-frågor' explicitly identifies the user-intent context for using the tool. It gives clear usage context, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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