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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail — answers are grounded in 'today's prices', i.e. current data — but says nothing about how answers are formed, ranking, or limits on question complexity.

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?

A single sentence with the verb and action front-loaded and the illustrative examples parenthesized at the end. No filler, and the most important information comes first.

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, one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input style, and data freshness adequately. A brief hint of what an answer looks like (e.g. ranked options with prices) would close the remaining gap.

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 only one self-descriptive parameter ('question') and schema description coverage is 0%, but the three inline examples effectively define the expected shape of that input, showing it accepts free-form natural language with prices, brands, and workloads bundled together.

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 concrete verb (answer) and resource (plain-language hosting price questions) and illustrates scope with three representative queries spanning price, comparison, and workload-fit use cases. However, it never names or contrasts itself with siblings like search_vps_plans or current_vps_offers, leaving the boundary implicit.

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 example questions imply when the tool is appropriate (natural-language, comparative, or needs-based pricing questions) but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative for structured plan lookups.

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