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

No annotations are provided, so the description holds full responsibility. It implies a read-only operation (ranking) but does not disclose data source, update frequency, or behavior when no gaps exist. Minimal behavioral context beyond purpose.

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 action, but it is a single run-on sentence. Could be improved with clearer structure, but no unnecessary words.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and usage scenarios adequately. It could explain output format or edge cases, but for a simple ranking tool, it is nearly complete.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter, which is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional information about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specifically states it finds rankings of price gaps for the same product across momo, PChome, and brand official websites, and provides example user queries. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_prices, which does general comparison, and find_deals.

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 includes example queries ('哪些東西不同通路差很多' and '同款哪裡買最便宜') to guide when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools.

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