Price competitiveness vs the market

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=truelok and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds crucial behavioral details: it is a wrapper over a canned query, it requires Market Insights opt-in, and price amounts are in micros and may be strings. It also explains the business meaning of results, which goes beyond 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 dense but well-structured: it opens with the core function, then details the benchmark, the interpretation, the prerequisite, the price format, and the optional parameter. Every sentence adds value; nothing is redundant. It's appropriately sized given the complexity.

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 a read-only report query with no output schema. The description explains the business meaning, the data format quirk (micros, strings), the prerequisite, and the optional filtering. Combined with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the agent has all necessary information to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds context about the country parameter (narrows to one report country) and mentions the price format (micros, strings) which relates to the output but not directly to parameters. Overall, the description doesn't add much beyond what the schema provides.

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: a convenience wrapper over a canned MCQL query that compares product prices against a market benchmark, and explains the outcome (priced above benchmark loses clicks). It distinguishes it from related tools like price_insights by specifying the exact view and report_country_code.

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 explicitly mentions the prerequisite (opted into Market Insights) and the consequence of not meeting it (empty rows). It also notes the optional country filter narrows results, giving clear context for use. No alternative tools are named, but the specificity about the view and the opt-in requirement provide strong usage guidance.

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