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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it enumerates the return fields (verdict, band, signed deviation, confidence, evidence) and clarifies the non-obvious edge case that 'unknown' is not equivalent to 'fair'. It stops short of stating whether the call is purely read-only or whether it has side effects, which is the main remaining gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: purpose first, return contract second, edge-case semantics last. No filler, and the important scoping clause is front-loaded.

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 description covers purpose, the full result contract, and the ambiguous 'unknown' outcome, which is sufficient for a 10-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema. It could be more complete by naming the sibling to defer to for price computation, but nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly 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 100% and each parameter (including the binding min_price/max_price semantics and the optional current_price note) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description gives a specific verb and subject ('ask whether a price makes sense for its context') and immediately scopes the tool by contrast with the sibling that answers 'what the price should be' (i.e. compute_price). An agent can distinguish this from compute_price and browse_catalog without opening a schema.

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 clearly states the evaluation context (judging an existing/proposed price) and implicitly routes the 'what should it be' case elsewhere, giving an agent a usable when-to-use signal. It stops short of naming the alternative tool explicitly or listing exclusions/limitations, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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