Best value under budget

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's job is to add constraints — and it does: results are ranked, priced in Toman, restricted to in-stock products, and explicitly carry no quality score. That last point is a genuinely useful disclosure about what the tool will NOT return. It does not describe the shape of the ranked output, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the example and the tb_compare hand-off. Every clause carries information; the phrase 'No quality score: check specs with tb_compare' is slightly compressed but still readable.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the agent is left inferring what a 'ranked pick' record contains (price, shop count, model info) and how ranking changes with rank_by. The in-stock and no-score caveats are helpful, but for a tool of this complexity the description stops short of fully arming the caller.

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 71%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning, and the description adds only the Toman currency for budget — which the schema already states ('Max price, Toman.'). The ranking behavior of rank_by, the limit cap of 30, the query/category interplay, and the min_shops shop-count filter are not illuminated beyond their schema text. Baseline 3 for a well-covered schema is appropriate.

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?

It names a specific verb+resource ('Ranked product picks that fit a budget') and anchors it with a concrete intent example ('best phone under 30 million'), so the agent knows this is a budget-constrained discovery tool. It also pre-empts confusion with a rating tool by stating 'No quality score'. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like tb_cheapest or tb_search.

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?

Usage is implied through the example intent and the hand-off 'check specs with tb_compare', which tells the agent where to go for quality comparisons. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not versus tb_cheapest, tb_search, or tb_suggest, which are the most likely competing choices for the same request.

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