Get forecast

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the forecast is 'backtested' and conditional on history availability, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose what happens when insufficient history exists (e.g., empty result vs. error).

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and includes only necessary information. No fluff or redundant phrases.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description covers the purpose and a key condition. However, it lacks explicit details about the return value or behavior when enough history is absent, which would round out the context.

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 schema has full coverage for product_id with a descriptive label ('PrijsProfeet product ID'). The description does not add additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

Description clearly identifies the action ('get') and resource ('backtested price forecast for a product'), with a clear qualifier ('if enough history exists'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_price_history, which likely provides historical data rather than a forecast.

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 description implies the tool is used when a forecast is needed and when sufficient history exists, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. The condition 'if enough history exists' is a prerequisite but not a full usage guideline.

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