Unit-price history for an ingredient

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, and it does reasonably well: it discloses that history is limited to how far back this installation has been syncing, which is a genuine data-availability caveat. It also clarifies the aggregation (cheapest unit price per week), which is meaningful behavioral detail. It doesn't mention pagination, return format structure, or error behavior, but the key caveat 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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states function and granularity; the second adds a critically useful data-availability caveat. Every word earns its place.

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 relatively simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: function, granularity, purpose, and data caveat are all present. Minor gaps exist around what the output columns/rows look like and whether chain is optional (schema shows not required), but these aren't critical for a read-only price-history lookup.

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 for both params. It explains the ingredient param contextually ('for one ingredient') and that chain is a filter ('per chain'), giving meaning beyond the bare schema. It doesn't explicitly spell out parameter formats, but the natural-language usage conveys the semantics adequately.

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+resource construct: it explains the tool returns the cheapest unit price per week per chain for one ingredient. It clearly distinguishes what it does from a generic 'price lookup' by specifying granularity (weekly, per chain, unit price), and its purpose (judging whether a tilbud is genuinely good). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_offers and compare_ingredient.

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 gives clear context on when to use: to judge whether a discounted price is genuinely good. It implies historical/reference comparison use. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., use compare_ingredient for direct comparisons), so it stops short of full 5.

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