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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the bar is lower. The description adds only content scope, not behavior — no note about whether prices are cached, static, or versioned.

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 with the resource leading. Inlining the actual price figures is slightly unusual (arguably return-value data), but it is compact and does not bloat the definition.

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 parameterless, read-only informational tool with no output schema, the description conveys enough about what comes back (plan tiers, prices, cost-range location) to call it correctly. Missing only explicit usage routing, which the sibling list would otherwise require.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document; baseline 4 applies. No parameter meaning is lost because there are no parameters.

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 identifies the resource: EcoCheck software plans with specific tier names and prices, plus a pointer to inventory-service cost ranges. An agent can tell it apart from transactional siblings like calculate_ghg_inventory or estimate_cbam_cost, though it never frames the action as a retrieval ('returns', 'lists').

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as list_services, about_ecocheck, or estimate_cbam_cost. The phrase 'where to find inventory-service cost ranges' hints at scope but gives no condition for selecting this tool.

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