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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-dependency are covered. The description adds that the price pulls from vendors and a provider quote and hints at exclusions via 'what the total does not include', but the phrasing is vague and adds little concrete behavior beyond the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence beginning with the core outcome ('One price for a quantity') with no filler. The trailing clause 'and what the total does not include' is slightly awkward and underspecified, keeping it short of a 5.

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 read-only pricing tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers what the price comprises, which is adequate. It omits currency, whether the result is an estimate, and the provider prerequisite, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether this is the right call.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description alludes to quantity (boards) and the provider quote, matching the schema, but adds no syntax, format, or default details beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action and resource: it returns 'one price for a quantity' and enumerates the components (parts, board/assembly from the provider quote, setup fees). This clearly separates it from get_bom or send_order_to_provider, though it never uses a crisp 'get the price for a design' verb+resource phrasing.

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 gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. It doesn't mention that a provider id (from list_order_providers) is needed, that requirement only living in the schema, and offers no routing against sibling tools like get_bom.

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