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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the result is live, cross-site, based on current asking prices (not sold prices), and includes listing count and retrieval date. It does not mention potential errors or cache behavior, but for a read-only query tool this is adequate.

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 concise, with two sentences containing no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately specifies the key output fields and an important caveat ('never sold').

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema, and the description explains what output to expect (median, n, date). It is complete enough for an agent to know what the tool returns and what data it aggregates, though it could mention currency or exact marketplace list.

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 schema already provides a thorough description of the single parameter 'spec' with an example, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score 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 it returns a live cross-site median of current asking prices for a specified bag, with count and retrieval date. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_bag_price and get_benchmark by emphasizing the median across marketplaces and clarifying 'asking prices only'.

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 clear usage: use when you need the current market median asking price for a bag spec across multiple resale sites. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for correct selection among siblings.

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