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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it 'abstains when pricing is not published' and 'never invents a quote,' which tells the agent how the tool handles missing information. It also mentions that results include sources. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two sentences and to the point, front-loading the tool's purpose. The second sentence mixes a behavioral promise with a caller instruction ('Include actual task context; use null for unknowns'), which is slightly awkward but not padded. It earns a high score for brevity.

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 states the tool's output (pricing pages with sources) and its fallback behavior (abstain if not published), which is useful given there is no output schema. However, with 12 parameters and several closely related siblings, the description does not clarify output format, what 'sources' means, or how to choose among siblings. It is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 the schema fully documents all 12 parameters. The description only repeats the schema's instruction to 'use null for unknowns' and adds no per-parameter semantics beyond what's already in the property descriptions. 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 identifies this as a pricing-specific tool, stating it returns 'the published pricing pages that apply, with sources' for the user's organisation and outcome. This differentiates it from siblings like mudpie_compare and mudpie_search, which are not pricing-focused. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve' or 'return', and the opening is a noun clause rather than a clear action statement.

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 implies the tool is for pricing questions but never states when to prefer it over siblings such as mudpie_compare or mudpie_search. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance, only the behavioral promise to abstain when pricing is unpublished. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and scope.

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