query_item_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose key behaviors: partial match support, optional vendor filter, and that it returns average price plus recent purchase history with a default limit of 10. However, it omits whether this is read-only (though implied by 'Get'), any auth or rate limits, and what the history entries contain beyond 'purchase history'.

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?

Front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence, then usage detail, then a structured Args section. No wasted words; each sentence adds value. Well-organized for quick parsing.

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 3-param read-only query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core inputs and return summary. However, without an output schema, it could better describe the shape of the returned history (e.g., date, price, vendor fields) and whether results are sorted or paginated. Still missing some behavioral context needed for full confidence.

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. It explains each parameter: item_name supports partial match (with an example showing 'banana' matches 'Organic Bananas'), vendor is an optional filter, and limit controls max history entries with default 10. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 (get) and resource (average price and price history for a grocery item). Distinguishes from siblings like list_items_by_category (listing), query_spending (spending totals), and add_grocery_items (mutation) by focusing on price lookup. Clear what the tool returns.

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?

Implies usage via search-by-name with optional vendor filter, but does not state when to use this tool versus query_spending or list_items_by_category. No explicit when-not or alternatives given. Adequate but with a clear gap in routing guidance.

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