price_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It mentions 'track or estimate' but doesn't explain what estimation entails, what data sources are used, or what the return format looks like, leaving significant gaps for an agent that needs to interpret results.

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 that starts with the core action and includes a purpose clause. It is concise, front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how to interpret it. It only states the high-level purpose, leaving the agent uncertain about the result structure (e.g., time series, verdict, or estimate). This is incomplete for effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (product, days_back, retailers). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 tracks or estimates price history to determine if a current price is a good deal, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like find_best_price or product_compare, which could also be used for deal evaluation.

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 phrase 'to determine if current price is a good deal' implies a clear context for when to use the tool. Yet there is no mention of when not to use it, and no alternatives are named among the sibling tools, leaving the guidance at an implied level.

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