Price history events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description adds behavior beyond that: data provenance (weekly minimum series, Torob's own event feed deliberately not used), the per-week-not-per-day granularity caveat, currency (Toman), and result ordering. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but the added context is substantive.

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 resource and its ordering, then the provenance caveat, then the use case. Slightly over-explained in the parenthetical about which feed is not used, but every sentence carries real information for an agent.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and largely does so by enumerating the event types and ordering, plus stating the currency. Remaining gaps are the shape of returned fields and how 'limit' truncates results, which are minor for a read-only list tool.

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 67%: 'product' and 'min_change_pct' are documented in the schema, while 'limit' is not. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no mention of limit behavior or accepted product identifier forms), so this sits at the baseline where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it lists exactly what is returned (drops, rises, lowest/highest point, last change) and in what order (newest first). It also implicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tb_price_chart by stating the data is derived from the chart's weekly minimum series and is therefore per-week, not per-day — enough for an agent to tell the two apart.

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 a concrete triggering question ('did the price just drop') and constrains the interpretation (weekly granularity, so it is unsuitable for same-day detection). It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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