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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that some products take several seconds or need manual confirmation, and that the agent must tell the customer before calling. These are behavioral traits not conveyed by the readOnly/openWorld/hints. No contradiction with 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?

The description is about 300 characters and contains five sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose, usage modes, latency/manual steps, customer communication, and presentation rules. It is front-loaded with the purpose and remains focused, though it could be slightly more concise by merging the 'Never estimate' rule into the first sentence.

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 complexity (nested options, multiple product types, latency, and interactive requirements), the description addresses all key aspects: prerequisite (vivid_product), exact configuration requirement, simple vs complex products, latency/manual confirmation, customer-facing behavior, and what to include when presenting the result. Although no output schema exists, the presentation instruction implicitly describes the output fields, making it sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying when to use `options` vs `size`, and the phrase 'FULL selected configuration' warns against partial input. It also links `options` to vivid_product's schema keys, adding beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 begins with a specific verb+resource: 'Calculate the current price for an EXACT product configuration.' This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like vivid_price_breaks (price breaks) and vivid_request_quote (request a quote) by emphasizing exactness and live pricing.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: pass `options` for configurable products after using vivid_product, or just `size` for simple products. It also gives a clear exclusion: 'Never estimate or reuse another configuration's price.' Additionally, it instructs when to inform the customer, which is valuable interaction guidance.

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