get_price_history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond those: weeks without data are absent, each point is a weekly average stamped with a date, and the last point is not the current price. This is exactly the kind of context annotations don't provide, so it earns a 5.

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 compact and well-structured: the main purpose is stated first, followed by two clarifying sentences that add behavioral constraints. There is zero redundancy, and every sentence earns its place. It's appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (Has output schema: true), the description needn't explain return values. It covers all essential operational aspects: data granularity (weekly), absence handling, current price distinction, and trend validity. For a read-only tool with one parameter, this is complete and leaves no ambiguity 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 schema has full description coverage for the single parameter 'article' (100%), including an example value and type. The description doesn't add further parameter semantics, but with high coverage the baseline is 3 and there is no gap to compensate. The description's mention of 'article' is consistent, but it doesn't enrich beyond the schema.

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: it returns weekly average prices for an article, and contrasts with the live price. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_product or get_reviews, which serve different resources. The verb 'get' and resource 'price history' are specific.

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 explicit usage guidance: it warns that the last point is not the current price and directs the agent to `current_price_rub` instead, and cautions that with 0–1 points no trend can be claimed. It doesn't explicitly list alternative tools for when to use it, but the context is clear enough given the sibling names.

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