check_prices

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It highlights that each watch incurs an external SerpAPI search, which implies cost/rate limits, and it discloses the side effect of recording prices. It doesn't cover error handling or auth, but for a simple tool this is solid.

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 description is two sentences: the first packs action and expected output, the second adds the critical operational cost (SerpAPI search count). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly states what the tool reports (drops or target hits) and its side effect (recording prices). It lacks details about empty watch lists or failure behavior, but given the zero-parameter simplicity, it is largely complete.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. According to the calibration baseline, 0 params earns a 4, and the description's mention of 'every price watch' implicitly explains the scope without needing parameter detail.

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 clearly specifies the verb 'Re-check' and the resource 'every price watch', and it states concrete outcomes: record prices and report drops or target hits. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_price_watches (listing) and track_price (adding a watch), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'now' implies an on-demand refresh, and the note about using one SerpAPI search per watch signals cost considerations. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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