Price competitiveness vs the market

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: the opt-in requirement with empty-result consequence, that amounts are in micros and may be string-int64, and the interpretation that 'a product priced above the benchmark is losing clicks to cheaper rivals.' This adds rich context without contradicting 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?

The description is four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the wrapper/resource, explaining output interpretation, stating the prerequisite, and noting data format details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 sufficiently explains the response content ('for each product, your price vs the market benchmark_price... with report_country_code'), the prerequisite and its failure mode, and the numeric format. It enables an agent to understand what results to expect and how to interpret them, covering the essential context for 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description reinforces the country parameter's purpose and adds the micros/string note about output, but it does not significantly enhance understanding of account, page_size, or page_token beyond the schema. Thus a 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 opens with 'Convenience wrapper over a canned MCQL query on price_competitiveness_product_view', clearly stating the tool's specific verb (get/report) and resource. It explicitly defines the output as 'your price vs the market benchmark_price' with report_country_code, making it distinct from generic report tools like search_reports or the sibling price_insights.

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 gives a clear prerequisite: 'Requires the account to be opted into Market Insights (free, in Merchant Center settings) — otherwise rows are empty.' It also clarifies parameter usage ('Optional country narrows to one report country'). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like price_insights, so it lacks direct exclusions but has clear context.

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