find_price_drops

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the matching semantics (threshold, window, single/cumulative), which is useful, but it never states that the operation is a safe read, what it returns (though an output schema exists), or how the 'window' is defined.

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 one compact sentence front-loading the core criterion, with the cumulative-drop clarification in a parenthetical. Every phrase earns its place; no filler.

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?

Despite an existing output schema, the description is thin for an 11-parameter tool with no annotations. It never explains how the window is set (the since parameter), doesn't mention pagination or defaults, and offers no behavioral context such as sorting or listing status.

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 only 45%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the role of min_pct ('dropped by >= min_pct') and implies the window comes from the since parameter, but it doesn't add meaning for parameters like make, model, price_max, or transmission, which lack schema descriptions.

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 identifies the resource (Listings) and the qualifying condition (asking price dropped by >= min_pct within the window), and the parenthetical on single vs cumulative drops sharpens the definition. It doesn't use an explicit verb, but the tool name supplies the action, and the text distinguishes it from broad sibling 'find_deals' by specifying a measurable drop threshold.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like find_deals or get_listing_changes, and mentions no exclusions or prerequisites. Only the name and subject imply a use case.

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