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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to disclose result semantics — and it does: evening rates are returned separately, and weekly/bi-weekly cleans return both the prepaid 3-visit pack and per-visit pricing. It doesn't state whether prices are cached, currency, or expiry, but the behavioural disclosure is well above the annotation baseline.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the parameter guidance. The middle sentence is somewhat compound and the closing clause about packs is dense, but no sentence is padding.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does describe the prepaid-pack vs per-visit distinction for recurring cleans. Missing currency/format details and whether the quote expires, but for a zero-required-parameter price lookup it is largely 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, but the description adds interaction semantics the schema does not: date+start_time together produce a slot-exact quote, while omitting them yields a length/job-level price. That conditional relationship is the key to using the seven optional parameters correctly.

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 with scope: 'the price the checkout will show a new customer'. It even characterises whose price it is (new customer) and mentions evening rates and vouchers, which distinguishes it from find_services (what we sell) and find_times (when it's available).

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to supply date and start_time 'from find_times' for an exact slot figure, and what happens without them (price for that length or job). It names the upstream sibling tools that feed the parameters, so the routing decision is unambiguous.

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