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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable, closed-world pricing call. The description adds the app-only scope constraint, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about cost/auth requirements or when estimates expire — acceptable but not rich.

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 short sentences with the scope constraint front-loaded, no filler. The terse sibling clause is the one piece that costs clarity rather than saving space.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains thin is the relationship to sibling pricing/upscale tools, which the garbled final clause does not resolve — leaving the agent to guess the boundary between `app_upscale_quote` and `estimate_upscale`.

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 already documents `kind`, `model`, `resolution`, and `source_url` with meaningful hints (e.g., model id from a prior estimate_upscale, enum for kind). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 title 'Price an upscale (app)' and the opening scope note make it clear this returns a price for an upscale, scoped to the app's own screens. However, the closing phrase 'estimate_upscale for the app's Upscale card' is ambiguous — it is unclear whether it names a sibling tool to use instead or merely describes one, so the exact purpose versus the sibling `app_upscale`/`upscale`/`estimate_upscale` is not cleanly nailed down.

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?

'For the Veltake app's own screens only — not for a conversation' gives one real exclusion and implies that non-app (conversational) pricing should go elsewhere. But the guidance on when to pick this over `estimate_upscale`, `app_upscale`, or `upscale` is left to inference, and the trailing sibling reference is too vague to serve as routing.

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