price_brief

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so 'Nothing is saved' largely restates the read-only hint. The description adds a little (defaults sourced from the market study, the user retains pricing control), but no auth, rate-limit, or data-source caveats beyond that.

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 front-loaded opening sentence is heavily nested with parentheticals and clauses, making it hard to parse on first read. The Args block is clean and well-structured, but the prose could be tightened.

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 need not be explained, and all parameters are documented despite 0% schema coverage. For a read-only pricing comparison this is nearly complete; only the routing vs sibling tools is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: path ('The game's folder'), appids ('Games to compare with instead of the market study's'), and countries (two-letter store codes with the full default list). All three parameters gain meaning the bare schema lacks, though 'the game's folder' remains slightly vague.

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 states a specific computation: close games' US full prices (median and middle half) plus per-country charge-per-US-dollar applied to this game's base price. That is a concrete verb+resource an agent can identify. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like compare_games or study_market, keeping it just below the top band.

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 useful defaults ('Default games: the market study's', default country codes) and a decision note ('the user decides the price'), but never states when to choose this tool over compare_games, estimate_sales, or study_market. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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