Get price history

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the authentication requirement (PRIJSPROFEET_API_KEY with Pro access). This is exactly the kind of context (auth needs) the rubric credits. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediate requirement. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundant content. This is a model of conciseness.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it does and the access requirement. It does not describe the return format or data granularity, which could be helpful in the absence of an output schema, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and strong annotation coverage.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter, product_id, with a description. Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it earns the baseline exactly.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Get Pro price history for a product.' This specifies the verb (get), resource (price history), and scope (Pro), distinguishing it from siblings like get_forecast (future predictions) and get_product (product details). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 usage context by stating the requirement 'Requires PRIJSPROFEET_API_KEY with Pro access,' which indicates when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it does not fully meet the 'clear context with exclusions' bar.

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