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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful context beyond those hints by stating it is public, requires no auth, cites a single authoritative source, and covers the retirement of old tiers. It does not contradict the annotations and gives agents confidence about safety and accessibility.

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 longer than average but well structured with numbered doors and focused subclauses. Every sentence contributes specific pricing or eligibility details, and the key message is front-loaded; minor marketing flourishes prevent a perfect score.

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, zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers both access paths, costs, trial/deposit terms, earning mechanics, the status of legacy tiers, and authentication requirements. An agent can confidently answer pricing questions without needing additional context.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully descriptive with an empty properties object, so the description has no parameter burden. The mention that it is 'Public, no auth' reinforces that no inputs are needed, aligning with the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 opens with 'WHAT ROKHA COSTS' and explains the two access doors, making it clear this tool provides authoritative pricing and access information for the Rokha Studio. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'explain', but the content unmistakably identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from the surrounding sibling tools.

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 explicitly says 'READ THIS instead of quoting a price from anywhere else', telling agents to use this source for pricing rather than external or stale information. It also notes 'Public, no auth' and that old subscription tiers are retired, giving clear context for when to consult this tool, though it does not name specific sibling alternatives.

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