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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the purpose. It does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what kind of output to expect, whether auth is needed, or any limitations. This leaves key behavioral traits unaddressed.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core function without redundant words. It earns its place and is appropriately concise for the tool's simple parameter set.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema and annotations, so the description must compensate by explaining expected results, but it only states the comparison purpose. It does not describe the return format, how 'price positioning' is measured, or what 'news coverage' entails, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's operation.

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%, with each parameter (brand, competitors, product_type) having a clear description. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 function: comparing the brand's price positioning against competitors specifically in news coverage. It uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like price_search or price_history that focus on individual price lookups or trends.

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 use case (comparing brand vs. competitor prices in news coverage) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or named sibling alternatives, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.

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