price_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses the matching algorithm (first relevance hit, or first on-sale hit when prefer_sale is set), that a cheapest-available match is also computed, that a total is estimated, and that unmatched items land under `missing`. It still omits permissions, rate limits, and failure behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then return semantics, then the edge case (`missing`). Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must describe return values, and it does — best match, cheapest match, estimated total, and missing items. Combined with the two-parameter schema, an agent has enough to call it, though parameter formats and error handling remain unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains prefer_sale's effect on matching, but only partly: the schema default is true while the text says 'when prefer_sale is set,' leaving the default ambiguous. The `items` parameter is never characterized as an array of free-text queries, so an agent gets no format guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Price a shopping list in one call,' and goes on to enumerate exactly what the tool computes. It is clearly distinguishable from search_products or product_details by its batch/pricing framing, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'in one call' phrasing and 'shopping list' framing suggest this is the batch alternative to per-item searches, and the prefer_sale mention hints at a sale-oriented use case. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative such as search_products.

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