x5_get_product_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral caveat that networks and units are not mixed in the summary, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, date range handling, or response structure.

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?

Two short sentences carry the core purpose, the prerequisite lookup, and an important output caveat with no wasted words. The information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

A six-parameter tool with no output schema and zero parameter coverage in the description needs more context. The description omits meaning for the date range, pagination, and network parameters, and does not describe the response shape at all.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It clarifies the meaning of pluId by pointing to x5_search_purchases and hints at network semantics, but it does not explain from/to, limit, offset, or the network enum values.

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 names a specific resource (PLU) and the data returned (history, prices, quantity), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling x5_get_price_changes, which could plausibly overlap with price history, so it loses the top score.

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 tells the agent to find PLU via x5_search_purchases, providing a clear prerequisite and workflow. It does not state when to avoid this tool or how it compares to related siblings like x5_get_price_changes.

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