Inspect BestPrice price history

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description still adds valuable context by stating the tool returns deterministic minimum/median statistics, compact daily history, coverage gaps, methodology, and a bounded deal classification. It does not contradict the 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 three sentences with no fluff: purpose is front-loaded, exclusions follow, and output characteristics are summarized last. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

With an output schema present, return values do not need detailed explanation, and the description still previews what is returned. Combined with thorough annotations and a fully documented input schema, the definition gives an agent everything needed to decide whether to call this tool and how to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains product_id format/source and period_days allowed values/default. The description reinforces the 'exact grouped product_id' and the 30/90/180-day windows but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb–resource structure: it lets a user check whether one exact grouped product_id's current price is low, typical, or high over 30/90/180 days. It also explicitly distinguishes what the tool is not for (discovering products, comparing merchants, guaranteeing future prices, repeating discount claims), which separates it from the sibling tools.

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 opens with a clear when-to-use condition ('user has one exact grouped product_id and wants to know whether its current price is low, typical, or high') and then gives explicit when-not-to-use scenarios such as discovering products, comparing merchants, and guaranteeing future prices. This gives an agent strong routing guidance relative to the sibling tools.

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