get_price_position

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by detailing what is returned ('percentile rank, Price Index, and market position (Value/Parity/Premium) based on 100+ tracked products') and its free aspect, which goes beyond 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 extremely concise, consisting of a few sentences that front-load the purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value: action, use cases, return details, and competitive differentiation. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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?

The tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations. The description sufficiently covers what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and its scope (100+ tracked products). It is complete for this simple tool without needing further details.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantics for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'price in dollars' and category names are already in schema descriptions).

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 'Check where a CPG product price sits vs Amazon competitors', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'compare_products' and 'get_category_overview' by focusing specifically on price positioning of a single product against market competitors.

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 explicitly defines when to use with example queries: 'am I priced too high? How does my price compare to the market?' and positions the tool as a 'Free alternative to NielsenIQ/SPINS competitive pricing data.' It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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