find_best_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It reveals that the tool scrapes live pages and that Best Buy blocks access, but it does not disclose other potential behavioral issues like rate limiting, IP blocks from other retailers, or terms-of-service risks. The description is partially transparent but lacks a fuller safety and reliability disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured: three sentences, each adding meaningful information. It leads with the core action, then differentiates from siblings, and ends with an important caveat. No filler or repetition.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema), the description provides good context: it explains the geographic scope, the direct scraping behavior, and a known blocker. However, it does not describe the return value structure or failure handling, which for a scraping tool could be relevant. Still, the core context is sufficiently covered.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add detailed meaning beyond the schema parameters; it only reinforces that the retailers are Canadian. The schema already explains query, limit, and retailers, so the description adds little incremental 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 clearly states the tool's function: scraping Canadian retailer search pages to find the actual lowest price. It uses specific verbs ('scrape', 'find') and distinguishes itself from sibling product_search by noting it reads live retailer pages, making it more accurate.

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 contrasts with product_search ('More accurate than product_search because it reads live retailer pages'), providing clear guidance on when to prefer this tool. It also warns that Best Buy Canada blocks automated access, implying not to expect results from that retailer.

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