Compare prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the return value (per-retailer offers and low/high range), but it omits any caveats such as region effects on results or what happens if both query and URL are provided. It gives basic output info but lacks depth.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and output. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 the tool's complexity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the input mode (query or URL) and the return format. It could mention that region affects retailer selection, but the schema already documents the region parameter and its default, so the description does not need to repeat it.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds important semantic context by stating 'query OR a product URL', clarifying that exactly one of these is expected despite no required parameters in the schema. This adds value beyond the individual field 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 states the specific verb 'Compare' and the resource ('one product's price across multiple retailers'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_product, search_products, and list_retailers by focusing on price comparison. It also specifies the output: 'per-retailer offers plus the low/high price range.'

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to compare prices across retailers) and states the input requirement ('Provide a query OR a product URL'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling tool names in context signals imply the intended use cases.

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