track_price

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main side effects ('Saves the search as a watch and records its current lowest price') and the alert mechanism. However, it omits details like what happens if a watch already exists, return value, or permission requirements, which prevents a higher score.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It avoids fluff and clearly separates the primary action, follow-up action, and parameter explanations.

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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides the core workflow but lacks comprehensive details about parameter interplay, return values, and edge cases. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete for a tool with this many parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains only two parameters (target_price and label) out of 11. The remaining parameters (departure_id, arrival_id, outbound_date, return_date, etc.) rely on their names and defaults, but the description adds no meaningful context for them, leaving significant gaps.

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 starts with an explicit verb+resource: 'Start tracking the price of a route over time.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like search_flights (searching) and check_prices (checking existing watches) by emphasizing the action of creating a persistent watch and recording the current lowest price.

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 clear workflow guidance by stating 'Re-check with check_prices (or the scheduled checker)' and explains the purpose of target_price and label. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the alternative is named and the intended lifecycle is clear, so it earns a 4.

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