Category price table

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context on top: Rial groups return price_toman (Rial / 10), crypto is USD, folder ids derive unit per row from the symbol-name rule, `unit: mixed` adds a per-row unit, unknown symbols stay `as_listed`, and `stale` flags quotes older than 2 days. This is exactly the extra behavioral detail annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and field list, then layered with unit/stale semantics and the crypto routing note. Every sentence carries distinct information, though the density of parenthetical asides makes it slightly heavier than it needs to be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does: price, change, day high/low/open per symbol, plus unit and stale markers. Combined with the category semantics and the crypto-routing caveat, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, and the description earns above baseline by explaining what the category value actually implies: preset groups have known units (Rial/toman vs USD) while a folder id from tj_list_categories resolves unit per row via the symbol-name rule. It does not, however, add anything about limit/offset 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 specific verb+resource+scope: a live price table for one TGJU group, listing the exact fields returned (price, change, day high/low/open per symbol). It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by naming tj_get_prices and tj_search_symbols as the right tools for the crypto case.

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 gives concrete use cases ('all gold prices', 'all coin prices', 'all currency rates') and an explicit when-not: the crypto preset lists ~27,000 coins in no useful order, so use tj_get_prices for major coins and tj_search_symbols for the rest. Alternatives and the condition selecting them are stated outright.

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