Get Item Price

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

The readOnlyHint annotation indicates a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the matching criteria ('by itemId or exact/near-exact name') and the return contents (price, trends, examine text), which is more than the annotation alone provides. It does not describe edge-case behavior, but for a simple read-only tool this is adequate.

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 conveys the verb, resource, and matching method without any filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise 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?

For a read-only tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description lists the return contents (price, trends, examine text) and matching criteria, which is sufficient for the complexity. It lacks details on conflict resolution or update frequency, but these are not essential for using the tool 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?

The schema descriptions for both parameters are explicit ('Item name (provide itemId or name). Prefer lookup_item for fuzzy search.' and 'Grand Exchange item ID (provide itemId or name)'), covering 100% of the parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'Grand Exchange price, trends, and examine text for an item', distinguishing it from siblings like lookup_item (fuzzy lookup) and get_item_graph (graph data) by the specific combination of current price, trends, and examine text.

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 schema description for the name parameter explicitly says 'Prefer lookup_item for fuzzy search', which provides an alternative for fuzzy matching. The tool description itself implies use for exact/near-exact names but does not explicitly state when-not-to-use beyond the schema hint, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.

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