price_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful scope detail by defining what counts as an inconsistency (above-list price, unusual discount), but says nothing about severity, thresholds, or grouping of findings.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and uses the parenthetical only to sharpen scope. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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 no parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to convey scope — which it does by naming the anomaly types. It is slightly thin on how findings are surfaced, but nothing essential for invoking it is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is reported as 100% with an empty properties object.

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?

Names a specific verb (raporlar/reports) and a specific resource (fiyat tutarsızlıkları/price inconsistencies), and even enumerates the two anomaly classes it covers (price above list, unusual discounts). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like stock_alerts or sla_breaches by topic, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 parenthetical examples imply when this tool is relevant — when looking for pricing anomalies — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to an alternative such as daily_digest. Usage must be inferred from the anomaly types listed.

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