Shortlist Price Index

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the output includes entry prices, ratings, best-for notes, a link, and instructions for using buyUrl and citations. However, it does not mention data freshness, caching, or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity about the source and reliability of the data.

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?

The description is three concise sentences, each adding value: the first defines functionality, the second provides a use case, and the third gives actionable guidance. There is no redundant information, and key points are front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return values (prices, ratings, best-for notes, link) and includes necessary usage details (buyUrl, citation). It covers the tool's simple purpose well, though it could mention error handling or data recency for completeness.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it mentions 'current entry prices' and 'best-for notes' which align with the category selection but does not elaborate on parameter format or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the tool retrieves the N cheapest providers in a category, including prices, ratings, best-for notes, and a comparison link. The verb 'Get' and resource 'cheapest providers' are specific, and the example 'cheapest password manager right now' distinguishes it from siblings like get_price_index or get_true_3yr_cost.

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 description explicitly recommends using this tool for quick recommendations ('Ideal for quick recommendations') and provides instructions on using buyUrl and citing citations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, though the context implies it for simple queries rather than detailed cost analysis.

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

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 what the tool returns (average, median, provider details, history, methodology) and includes usage instructions. It does not mention side effects or performance, but as a read operation, transparency is good.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by usage examples and instructions. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the information conveyed.

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?

Given a single parameter with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the output in detail, provides usage examples, and includes specific instructions for links and citations. It could hint at the return structure, but overall it is sufficient.

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 100% with an enum for the single parameter. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, though it implicitly clarifies that 'category' refers to one of the listed slugs. No extra semantics are provided.

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 states that the tool retrieves the full current price index for a category, including average, median, cheapest, and provider details. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying a comprehensive index rather than just the cheapest or three-year cost.

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 description provides explicit usage examples (e.g., 'what does a VPN cost per month') and gives instructions for using buyUrl and citations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like get_cheapest.

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

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

Discloses the calculation methodology (year1 at intro, years 2-3 at renewal), limitations (only published for web-hosting and antivirus, other categories return a note), and exclusion of providers without renewal prices. Also instructs to use buyUrl and cite citation string. No annotations present, so description carries full burden and does so well.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains ranking, usage examples, and limitations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Despite length, it remains focused and appropriately structured.

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?

Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (renewal multiplier, category average, buyUrl, citation string) and behavior for unsupported categories. It provides all necessary context for correct usage.

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 single parameter 'category' is well-documented in the schema with an enum and description. The description adds context about which categories are currently published (web-hosting, antivirus) and that others return a note, enhancing understanding beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the added context justifies a 4.

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 states the tool computes the honest 3-year cost per provider, ranked by real total, distinguishing it from siblings like get_cheapest which likely focuses on intro prices. The verb 'get' and resource 'true_3yr_cost' are specific and the scope is well-defined.

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?

Explicitly says 'use this for questions like...' and contrasts with the cheapest intro not being the cheapest over three years, implying when not to use get_cheapest. Sibling tools are named, providing clear alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It accurately describes a read-only listing operation returning slugs. It adds value by explaining the relationship to other tools, which compensates for the lack of annotation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use the output. Complete for a simple list tool.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no param details but is not needed; baseline 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 states the tool lists software price categories, specifies the scope ('entry prices across 11 US/global categories and 5 Dutch categories'), and explains the output's purpose (slugs for other tools). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on specific categories.

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 description implies the tool is used to obtain slugs for subsequent tools (get_price_index, get_cheapest). It provides good context but does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or name alternatives beyond the siblings.

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