compare_price

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses one useful behavioral trait (results sorted ascending by price), but does not mention whether the comparison is real-time, how unavailable items are handled, or any other operational effects. The description adds some transparency but leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word adds meaning, and the core action ('compare product prices') is front-loaded. It is an excellent example of concise, efficient writing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description provides no guidance on how to fill the three input parameters, and 0% schema coverage leaves the agent in the dark about query semantics, retailer filtering, and result limits. The description is incomplete for a tool with this parameter complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter semantics. It does not mention what 'query' should contain, how to use the 'retailers' filter, or what 'max_results_per_retailer' limits. The description is completely silent on all three parameters, making it impossible for an agent to construct correct arguments from the text alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('compare'), a clear resource ('product prices across DIY retailers'), and a distinct behavior ('sorted ascending by price'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_products (searching general products) and get_stock (stock levels). An agent can immediately understand what the tool does.

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 states a clear context: use this tool when you need to compare product prices across DIY retailers. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is specific enough for an agent to infer when to select it over the sibling tools. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so not a 5.

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