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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond them: it is free, no purchase is made, and it enumerates the returned values (price, cash equivalent, balance). It stops short of return format or staleness details, but that is a minor gap against existing annotations.

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?

Three short sentences: what it does, that it is free, and the approval workflow. The purpose is front-loaded and each sentence carries weight, though the workflow sentence could be marginally tighter.

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 single-parameter, read-only quote tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, the approval gate, and the follow-up action. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema documents nothing about the single hostname parameter. The description implies 'one hostname' and stresses the 'exact hostname', adding some meaning, but gives no format or normalization guidance beyond that. Baseline of 3 is appropriate for a lightweight single-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reads the credit price, cash equivalent and balance for one hostname. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling soclo_domain_buy by noting no purchase is made, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly defines the workflow: use this to show a quote and obtain owner approval of the exact hostname and price before calling soclo_domain_buy. Both the when and the conditional alternative are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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