compare_prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only search against multiple stores but never states auth requirements, latency across N stores, rate limits, or what happens when stores are not connected. Only the multi-store scope is disclosed.

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?

One sentence plus a docstring-style arg note; front-loaded and free of filler. The 'Args:' block is slightly awkward framing but is efficiently sized for a single-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool whose siblings are all login/checkout operations, omitting any auth or store-connection prerequisite leaves a real gap an agent must discover by failure.

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% – the only param is a bare 'query' string with no schema-level description. The description compensates with examples ('eggs', 'chicken breast'), which is genuinely helpful, but adds no format constraints, matching behavior, or normalization rules.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: comparing prices for a product 'across all connected stores.' This distinguishes it from siblings like search_products (single-store lookup) and compare_recipe, though it never explicitly names those alternatives. Clear purpose without sibling routing.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the login tools (login_tivtaam, login_shufersal, check_login) that clearly gate this operation. An agent cannot tell from the description whether it must authenticate first or which store set 'connected' implies.

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