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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by noting the tool is 'Free' and 'Machine-readable', and outlines the content. It does not disclose potential response format details or rate limits, but with annotations covering safety, this is acceptable yet not enriched.

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 a single compact sentence, front-loaded with 'Free' and then a clear summary of content. Every word contributes to the message, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple read-only pricing menu tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main content areas (free vs paid, pricing, deposit/spend flow). It could mention the exact machine-readable format, but overall it is complete enough for its simplicity.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description properly indicates no input is needed, and there is no parameter documentation gap since none exist.

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 identifies the resource as a 'machine-readable pricing menu' and specifies its content (free vs paid tools, pricing, deposit/spend flow). While there is no explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', the term 'menu' implies retrieval, and the scope is clear. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on pricing-specific data.

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 implies usage for pricing inquiries (free vs paid, deposit/spend), providing clear context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, so the usage is inferred rather than stated.

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