get_price_history

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 only states that it returns history, with no mention of side effects, error behavior, auth requirements, or what happens if no history exists. The description does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond what is obvious from the name.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, achieving maximum clarity in minimal words.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description should clarify the return structure and any limitations. It does mention '(timestamp, price)' as the history format, but it omits details like time range, ordering, or pagination. For a no-output-schema tool, this is only marginally 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does little to compensate. It says 'for a watch' but does not explain the watch_id parameter's semantics, source, or constraints beyond what the schema name implies. The parameter is a simple integer, but the description still adds minimal value.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as 'recorded price history (timestamp, price) for a watch.' This distinguishes it from siblings like track_price (which starts tracking) and list_price_watches (which lists watched items), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and general context. This is a clear gap for a tool in a set with related price-tracking operations.

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