get_price_alerts

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns current, non-dismissed alerts and optionally includes listing and stale data, which implies a read-only operation. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or return format, but for a simple getter the information is adequate; it adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the 'non-dismissed' state and the optional inclusions.

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, with the primary function stated first and the usage examples following. There is no fluff; every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and when to use it. It is efficiently structured and front-loaded.

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 tool has no output schema, the description does not explain the response structure, which could be important for an agent to parse the returned data. It implies the output includes sections for price alerts, listing alerts, and stale listings, but does not detail fields or pagination. For a tool of moderate complexity, the description is somewhat incomplete without return format details.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning—only the phrase 'optional context' for the two boolean parameters, which mirrors the schema. It does not provide syntax, types, or additional semantics beyond what the schema already gives.

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 states the tool retrieves current, non-dismissed price alerts with optional context for eBay listing and stale listings. It provides concrete example questions the tool answers, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like get_ebay_listings or get_latest_prices by focusing on the alert aggregation and non-dismissed filter.

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?

It explicitly gives usage guidance via example questions ('what should I look at today' or 'anything moving I should react to'), which tells an agent when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving the comparison to siblings implicit.

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