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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the return format is markdown and the content spans tiers, fees, terms, and add-ons, telling the agent what it will actually receive.

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 resource and format ('Cuvo's published pricing as markdown') before listing contents. Every clause carries information; there is no filler or repetition of the title.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the payload, and it does so by enumerating the pricing elements returned. The one gap is the lack of any cue for choosing this over content-overlapping siblings, but for correct invocation the definition is essentially sufficient.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate — the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly spends no space on parameter semantics.

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 names the specific resource (Cuvo's published pricing) and enumerates its contents: plan tiers with setup fees, the $25 per-consult fee, no revenue share, commercial terms, and add-ons. That is far more specific than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_overview or get_comparison, which an agent might reasonably also consider for pricing-adjacent questions.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With eight siblings — including get_overview and get_comparison, which could plausibly also touch on cost — the absence of routing guidance leaves the agent to infer usage purely from the resource name.

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