check_price_ladder

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value by naming the two anomaly conditions it flags, which tells the agent what the output represents beyond a generic 'check'.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the detection criteria following as supporting detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the detection logic well. The remaining gap is the ambiguous category parameter, which is a minor but real omission for a one-parameter tool.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It says the check runs 'in a category' but gives no indication of the expected format (name vs. ID, taxonomy level), leaving the sole parameter under-specified.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('price-ladder breaks') and then defines the detection rules concretely (bigger packs cost more per ounce, higher tiers priced at or below lower tiers). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_price_guardrails or get_price_elasticity, though it never names an alternative 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?

Usage is only implied: it's an analysis/audit tool scoped to a single category. There is no explicit statement of when to reach for this versus check_price_guardrails or simulate_price_change, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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