get_price_history

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 disclose the days default of 7 and the 90-day cap, which is useful behavioral context. It omits whether the monitor_id must belong to the caller, whether results are paginated, and what happens when no data exists in the window.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by parameter constraints. The example-query bullet list is longer than strictly necessary but earns its place by giving the agent phrasing matches for retrieval.

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-value explanation is correctly omitted, and the parameter constraints are covered. The only meaningful gap is not telling the agent how to obtain a valid monitor_id or how this differs from get_price_summary.

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 has to compensate, and it does: monitor_id is marked required, and days is documented with both its default (7) and hard maximum (90), which the bare schema does not say. It does not explain where a monitor_id comes from (e.g. get_monitor_list), leaving that link implicit.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: fetching a time series of price data for a given product, with the stated downstream uses (trend charting, price-change analysis). This implicitly separates it from get_price_summary, but it never names that sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 four example user phrasings ("近 7 天的价格走势", "价格变化记录", "画个价格折线图", "竞品今天是什么价格") give concrete trigger conditions for when to reach for this tool. However, it never states when NOT to use it or points to get_price_summary as the alternative for aggregate/snapshot queries.

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