Re-check a shortlist

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes further by clarifying output-field semantics that are easy to misread: cheapest_offer can undercut price, low_30d requires a two-day hold, and lowest_one_day_30d is Digikala's own one-day-dip figure. This is genuine added context beyond structured fields, though it stops short of describing rate limits or failure modes.

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 primary action and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, with usage and field semantics following. The explanation of the three low-price fields is dense but earns its place by preventing misreading; a little tightening could still be done.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't re-document return values, and with annotations covering safety it covers selection, usage context, sibling routing, and the semantic traps in the returned metrics. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage and schema-level min/max constraints, so baseline is 3. The description's 'up to 10 products in one call' merely restates maxItems=10 and adds no new syntactic or format detail beyond the schema.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: 'Re-price up to 10 products in one call', then enumerates exactly what it returns (price, cheapest offer, stock, rating, 30-day low). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like dk_compare and dk_price_history, which it names 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?

It states both when to use it 'to refresh a list the user is watching or deciding between, or to check a saved product is still in stock' and when not to, routing specs side-by-side to dk_compare and the daily curve to dk_price_history. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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