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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: no publishing, no live traffic impact, the 403 failure mode for unclaimed workspaces, and the required credential scope. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=false/openWorldHint=true (a test run is created but nothing live is mutated) and tells the agent what the actual blast radius is.

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?

Purpose and return values are front-loaded, and each following sentence carries real information (ownership restriction, input overrides, auth, workspace state). It reads as one dense block rather than scannable points, but nothing is padding.

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?

Though there is no output schema, the description enumerates the returned shape (price, explanation, confidence, alternatives). Combined with the auth prerequisites and the nested context/constraints/options inputs, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 all four parameters are already documented, including the 29.99 default. The description adds a light gloss on context/constraints/options ('override the sample') but no syntax or structural detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource ('Test-run one pricing function with sample data') and immediately enumerates what it returns (price, explanation, confidence, alternatives). The clause 'without publishing it or touching live traffic' draws the exact boundary between this tool and the live-compute siblings (compute_price, compute_prices_batch).

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?

Gives clear when-to-use conditions: your own draft functions, or a model-provider function only if you own it. Prerequisites are spelled out (function test scope credential, claimed workspace, 403 for sandbox keys). It stops short of naming a sibling as the alternative for live/production pricing, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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