obilet_price_stats

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the aggregation semantics ('across all journeys'), the currency (TRY), and the computed statistics, which is real behavioral value; however it says nothing about whether it is a read-only query, how it behaves when no journeys exist, or whether results are cached or limited to certain carriers.

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 dense sentences with the returned metrics front-loaded and parameter notes second; no filler and no redundancy.

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 three-required-parameter aggregate query with an output schema, the description covers purpose, returned metrics, and parameter formats adequately. The remaining gap is id provenance — how to resolve origin_id and destination_id — which an agent must guess from the sibling list.

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% — the schema gives only bare titles — so the description must compensate. It supplies the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) and characterizes origin_id/destination_id as bus location ids, which is useful, but it does not say where those ids come from (presumably obilet_search_locations) or whether they denote cities versus terminals.

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 names the resource (price statistics for a bus route + date) and enumerates exactly which statistics are returned (journey count, min/median/mean/max price in TRY). This clearly distinguishes it from obilet_search_bus_journeys, which lists individual journeys rather than aggregates, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as obilet_search_bus_journeys or obilet_journey_detail. The aggregate purpose implies a cheap overview use case, but the agent must infer that entirely.

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