price_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses provenance ('from the journal') and observational limits ('this tool has observed'), implying coverage may be incomplete, but says nothing about read-only safety, auth/permissions, result size, pagination, or ordering.

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 tight sentences with the resource and its scope front-loaded. The second sentence is partly rhetorical ('the value korter does not show') but does add differentiation, so waste is minimal.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and undocumented parameters mean the description should have covered return shape, scope/limits, and parameter meanings. It gives a good conceptual framing but leaves the operational essentials missing.

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% for two parameters, and the description does not compensate: 'one project' only loosely implies the slug identifies the project, and the currency enum (USD/GEL) is never explained or referenced. The agent must infer both from the schema alone.

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 resource and its scope: the accrued price history for one project, covering 'every price change and re-dating this tool has observed.' An agent understands it retrieves a time series of price movements, though no verb is used and no sibling (e.g. get_project, diff_report) is named to sharpen the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must the project be tracked?), and no alternatives named among the many siblings. Usage is only inferable from the resource name itself.

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