AgentShare Price API

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the selection criteria ('lowest price among in-stock listings the API trusts') and the single-result nature of the output. While annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world characteristics, the description provides operational details that help the agent understand what 'best' means in this context.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first explains what the tool does, the second provides usage guidelines. Every word contributes to understanding, with no wasted text or redundancy.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent query tool with good annotations and full parameter documentation, the description provides excellent context about when and why to use it. The main gap is the lack of output schema, but the description adequately compensates by explaining the single-result nature. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning potential limitations or error cases.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single 'query' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing additional semantic context.

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 with specific verbs ('return', 'lowest price') and resources ('single best current offer', 'product intent', 'in-stock listings'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by contrasting with 'price_search' for side-by-side comparisons.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when the user asks where to buy something cheapest, "best deal", or one clear recommendation') and when to prefer alternatives ('For side‑by‑side comparison of many listings, prefer price_search'). This covers both inclusion and exclusion criteria.

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