Search Swiss-market shop prices

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining that rows are historical observations, not current offers, that shipping/taxes are excluded, that missing values are null, and that source currency is preserved. This is critical behavioral context for interpreting results and avoiding misuse.

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 dense, well-ordered sentences: scope and filters first, then output semantics and caveats, then a clear reporting instruction. Every sentence earns its place without repetition or filler.

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, the description compensates by naming key row fields (source currency, bottle size, case quantity, scraped_at) and null behavior. It also clarifies interpretation and warns about non-included costs. Combined with the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret results.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description. The description restates filters such as 'CHF price range' and 'shop (site)' but adds little semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Search observed retailer prices from ~26 Swiss-market shops'. It clearly distinguishes this tool from wine-metadata siblings like elid_search_wines and elid_match_wine by focusing on retailer price observations.

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 for when to use the tool: searching historical Swiss shop prices, with explicit caveats that these are 'historical observations, not current offers' and that shipping/taxes are excluded. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context strongly implies the intended niche.

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