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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read only' line adds nothing. The genuinely useful addition is the billing semantics — per-search unit capped at 20 and the free mailbox send — which goes beyond structured fields. It still says nothing about currency, credit units, or how prices are returned.

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?

One compact sentence plus a pricing caveat, front-loaded with the core answer. The phrasing 'finding businesses (per search of up to 20) and writing one lead's emails' is slightly compressed but every clause carries pricing information.

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 trivial zero-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description covers the essentials of what is charged. It is incomplete on the output side — no mention of currency, credit denomination, or whether the response is a static price table — which matters for an agent deciding whether to quote these numbers to a user.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly does not waste words on inputs.

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 resource (current prices) and enumerates the two priced activities — finding businesses per search of up to 20, and writing one lead's emails — which clearly frames this as a pricing-lookup tool. It does not explicitly name a sibling like soclo_leads_find_quote, so an agent has to infer the boundary, but the verb+resource are unambiguous.

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 pricing context implies this is a pre-flight check before running a lead search or drafting outreach, and the 'free' note hints at what will not be charged. However, there is no explicit 'call this before X' instruction or exclusion of an alternative quoting tool, so usage must be inferred.

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