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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it uses live shop prices, confirms current availability, and returns compatibility verdicts and buy links, implying real-time data fetching without contradicting the annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence packs the core purpose, scope, and return contents efficiently. The country list is somewhat long and overlaps with the market enum, but it earns its place by clarifying exactly where live prices are sourced.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what the agent will receive: every part, price, compatibility verdict, FPS estimates, and a buy link. Combined with full schema parameter coverage and read-only annotations, nothing essential is missing for a correct invocation.

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 budgetEur, market, and compact. The description reinforces budget and market context by listing the countries and emphasizing live prices, but it does not need to explain parameters further; baseline 3 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 states a specific deliverable: a best-value, compatibility-checked desktop PC assembly within a budget, using live market prices. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools check_compatibility and estimate_fps because it builds the full PC rather than performing only one of those subtasks.

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 clearly signals when to use this tool: when the agent needs a complete, purchasable PC configuration within a budget and a supported market. It does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling tools or state when to prefer them instead, so it misses the top score.

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