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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it searches prices, but does not disclose whether it returns live data, how it aggregates from 'news and price comparison sites,' or any limitations (e.g., currency handling, result format). This is minimal and lacks behavioral detail.

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, concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value. This meets the standard for exemplary conciseness.

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 that there is no output schema, the description should explain what the search returns (e.g., price list, normalized results, comparisons). It does not. The description also does not clarify how it differs from alternatives like competitor_prices or idealo_search, leaving ambiguity in context. For a low-complexity tool, this is acceptable but still incomplete.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (product, category, currency). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as how to combine product and category or the default currency behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: searching product prices from news and price comparison sites. It uses a specific verb ('search'), a resource ('product prices'), and identifies the data sources, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like amazon_search (specific retailer) and price_history (historical data).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention whether it should be preferred over competitor_prices or idealo_search, nor does it include any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is entirely absent.

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