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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as informational, implying it is read-only, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or that it is safe to call. Since the tool name begins with 'get', it is likely a query, but the description omits an explicit statement about non-destructive behavior.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently communicates the tool's role and includes a usage directive without unnecessary fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It clearly enumerates what information the tool provides (free tools, membership costs, price floor) and gives usage context. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 input schema is empty. According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details because there are none to describe; this is appropriate and does not detract from the definition.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to explain access and pricing, specifically covering which tools are free, membership costs and unlocks, and the price floor for customisation. This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_tool and list_tools, which focus on retrieving tool details or listings rather than pricing/access.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Read this before telling anyone what something costs.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, but it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it. The directive is clear enough for a dedicated pricing/access tool.

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