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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral context beyond the schema: pricing is deliberately unpublished and quotes arrive privately in writing after a first call. It is silent on the locale parameter's effect, on whether the content varies by locale, and on the read-only/retrieval nature of the call.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The content inventory is front-loaded and the second sentence delivers the key expectation-setting fact about unpublished prices. The parenthetical enumeration is long but each item is informative, so it stays efficient overall.

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 simple, parameter-light retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns and the important pricing policy caveat. The only real omission is any guidance on the locale parameter, which is minor given the enum is self-explanatory.

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?

There is one optional parameter with a self-documenting enum (en/es/nl) and 0% schema description coverage. The description says nothing about locale, so it adds no meaning beyond the enum values themselves. The enum largely compensates, keeping this at the minimum-viable baseline rather than lower.

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 names the resource concretely and enumerates its contents (Discovery Sprint, fixed-price projects, Care, Grow, AI visibility audit) with the attributes returned (inclusions, audience, billing). That is specific enough for an agent to know it is the engagement/pricing overview. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbours like list_services or how_to_start, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for questions about engagement models or cost. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing advice against siblings such as list_services or how_to_start. The one genuinely useful cue is the negative one — 'Polargate does not publish prices' — which sets expectations for the call.

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