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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive profile. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: rows with source mmk/nausys are partner-managed and change there, while source=direct rows are the operator's to edit — telling the agent what is and isn't actionable.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the returned entity and then enumerates fields and source semantics. Minimal waste, though the source-syntax details make it long.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully specifies the returned fields (id, date span, price_per_day, source) and their semantics, which is the key missing structured info. It does not address grouping/pagination, but is otherwise sufficient for a single-param read tool.

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% for the single company_id parameter, so the schema carries parameter documentation. The description does not mention the company filter, so it adds nothing here; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: retrieves the fleet's season prices as per-boat week-price rows. It also names the sibling edit tools (add_price, update_price, delete_price), helping differentiate this read from the mutations, though differentiation is somewhat indirect.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it tells you which rows are editable via add_price/update_price/delete_price, which guides the follow-on action, but never explicitly says when to call get_pricing itself or what alternatives exist.

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