regional_price_comparison

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's indication of a read operation is consistent. The description adds important behavioral context: 'DEMO prices' warns that data is not real, and the reference to Western parallel tools provides operational insight. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 very concise: three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core action, the second provides a parallel to familiar tools, and the third gives a concrete use case. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (as indicated in context signals), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, use case, and behavioral caveat (DEMO). It could be slightly improved by mentioning the geographic scope (Kenya markets) more explicitly, but it is adequately 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%, with clear parameter names and descriptions. The tool description adds meaning by explaining that farmer_location provides 'transport cost context,' which clarifies why this parameter is needed and how it enriches the comparison.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: compare commodity prices across all Kenya markets to find the best price. It provides a concrete use case ('should I take my maize to Nairobi or sell locally?'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like commodity_price_query (which likely queries a single price) or sell_hold_decision (which focuses on timing).

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 a clear when-to-use example ('should I take my maize to Nairobi or sell locally?') and mentions a Western parallel (CME, DTN ProphetX), implying context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct differentiation from sibling tools such as market_overview or price_trend_analysis.

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