get_historical_low

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions aggregation across storefronts but does not disclose return format, error behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether any side effects occur. 'Get' implies a read operation, but this is not explicitly stated beyond the description's phrasing.

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. It states the action, the object, and the input constraint without unnecessary words, 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?

The description provides the core purpose and main input but lacks details on output structure or how it relates to sibling tools. Given there is no output schema, the description could explain what the response contains (e.g., price, currency, date). It also does not mention optional parameters like 'country' or potential limitations.

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 50% (only 'country' has a direct description). The description clarifies that 'ids' accepts one or more game UUIDs, adding meaning beyond the schema's nested oneOf descriptions. However, 'country' is not mentioned in the description, leaving the schema to fully explain it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all-time historical low prices') with clear scope ('across digital storefronts' for 'ITAD game UUIDs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_game_prices and get_active_deals by focusing on historical lows rather than current prices or deals.

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 implies when to use the tool (when historical low prices are needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like get_game_prices. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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