pricing_at

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that the tool returns historical archival data closest to a date, and that results include plan guesses, billing hints, context, and surrounding page text.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core operation before elaborating on returned content. It is efficient with no filler, though the dense colon-separated clauses could be slightly clearer if split.

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?

The tool has full schema coverage, an output schema, and rich annotations, so the description need not cover return values or safety in depth. It completes the picture with archival semantics and expected output content, missing only secondary details such as rate limits or authentication requirements.

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%, so the schema already documents url, date, max_text_chars, and response_format thoroughly. The description adds only high-level meaning ('as archived closest to a date' and 'page text around the prices') without detailed syntax or constraints 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 states a specific verb and resource: extracting prices from a pricing page as archived closest to a given date, including plan guesses and surrounding page text. This is more specific than a generic retrieval tool, though it does not explicitly name a sibling like pricing_timeline or compare_pricing as an alternative.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus pricing_snapshots, pricing_timeline, compare_pricing, or compare_competitors. The phrase 'as archived closest to a date' implies a point-in-time use case, but the description never states when this is preferable or when it should be avoided.

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