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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that figures are 'documented/estimated and cited — never an appraisal,' which is an important behavioral caveat. It also specifies that the resale price is for 'pristine' condition, adding context about the estimate's scope. This goes beyond a simple purpose statement, though it does not detail request mechanics or data sources.

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, well-structured sentence that packs all essential information—what is returned, the geographic/currency scope (US), the condition (pristine), and the crucial caveat about citations and non-appraisal—without unnecessary repetition. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core return values (retail, resale, premium) and the nature of the data. It could explicitly mention the currency format or the response structure, but given the tool's simplicity and available schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both required parameters (model and size) with descriptive examples. The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning, only contextualizing the overall price data. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's function: it returns the current cited US retail list price, estimated pristine secondary-market resale price, and the resale-over-retail premium for a Hermès bag. This specific verb+resource+output distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market_median or get_price_history, which focus on aggregate or 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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need current retail and resale prices for a specific Hermès bag model and size. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over broader price tools. However, it would benefit from explicitly noting that other tools cover different price aspects, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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