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 describes the tool's action and return type (cheaper prices and savings) but does not disclose data sources, accuracy, or any side effects. The behavior is implied but not explicitly detailed.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and usage context with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes useful example queries.

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's simplicity (2 basic string/number parameters, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is nearly complete: it states what it does and when to use it. It could be improved by clarifying what '其他通路' refers to, but it is still sufficient for an agent to understand its basic function.

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%, and the description restates the parameter purposes ('商品名稱或關鍵字' and '你付的價格（元）'), matching the schema. No additional semantic information is added beyond what the schema 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's purpose with a specific verb ('檢查' check) and resource ('商品是否買貴' price match), and provides example queries that distinguish it from sibling tools like compare_prices or cross_channel_gaps.

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 explicit trigger phrases ('使用者問「我買的○○貴了嗎」「這價格合理嗎」') that indicate when to use this tool, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or differentiate from all sibling tools.

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