usda_prices

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Get prices' is consistent with a read operation. However, the description adds no further behavioral traits such as data availability (e.g., historical range, frequency) or any potential limitations.

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 short, focused sentences with no extraneous text. All words contribute to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with readOnlyHint annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core function and parameter hints. However, it lacks information about expected output format or how results are structured, which would be helpful given no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% (each parameter has a description in the schema), so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It lists commodity examples but does not elaborate on state format, year restrictions, or output implications.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get prices received by farmers for agricultural commodities' with specific examples (CORN, WHEAT, etc.). This is a clear verb+resource combination, but it does not differentiate from sibling USDA tools like usda_crop_data or usda_livestock, which may also involve price data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. Among many sibling tools, including other USDA tools, there is no mention of specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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