AgentShare Price API

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, idempotent, and open-world operation. The description adds valuable context by specifying that it finds the 'best offer' (implying some ranking or optimization) and includes a note about API numeric units ('Pass max_price in the same numeric unit the deployed API expects'), which helps the agent understand implementation details beyond 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and parameter notes. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second specifies when to use it, the third clarifies parameter handling, and the fourth distinguishes from siblings. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics effectively. However, it does not explicitly describe the return format or what 'best' means (e.g., criteria like lowest price or highest rating), leaving a minor gap in behavioral context that could aid the agent.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that 'max_price' is a 'strict upper bound on price' and reiterates the API unit requirement, which reinforces the schema's details without redundancy. This provides additional semantic understanding beyond the schema's technical specifications.

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: 'Find the best offer for a product query with a maximum price ceiling.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('best offer'), and constraint ('with a maximum price ceiling'), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by stating when not to use it ('Do not use for open-ended comparison without a cap—use price_search or best_offer').

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 ('Use when the user gives a budget, "under $X", "below …", or "no more than …"') and when not to use it ('Do not use for open-ended comparison without a cap—use price_search or best_offer'), naming specific alternatives. This gives clear context and exclusions for proper tool selection.

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