compare_prices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a search across multiple platforms and can target a single platform, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential latency, rate limits, how results are sorted, or other runtime behavior. The 'search' wording does credibly imply a read-only operation, but more detail would improve transparency.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that front-load the core action and scope, followed by a useful platform list. Every word earns its place, and the format is easy to scan.

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 a rich input schema (100% parameter coverage) and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values or parameter syntax. The absence of annotations is partially mitigated by the clearly read-only 'search' behavior. The only gap is a lack of explicit usage guidance, but for a simple comparative search tool, the provided description plus schema is largely complete.

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 thoroughly describes all eight parameters. The description adds the friendly/localized platform names (e.g., 露天市集, 松果購物) which helps map human-readable names to enum values, but this is a minor addition over the schema. The description itself does not explain any parameter details, which is acceptable given the schema's richness.

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 ('Search') and a clear resource ('cheapest products') across all platforms, with an explicit option for single-platform search. It also lists the exact platforms, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's scope. Since there are no sibling tools to distinguish from, the lack of sibling comparison is not a penalty.

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 core use case is clearly implied: use this tool to find and compare cheapest product prices across platforms. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, any exclusions, or alternatives (though no siblings exist). The description leaves usage context to be inferred from the purpose.

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