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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, but the description adds substantial behavioral context. It explains verbatim price quoting, self-serve versus sales-led routing, panel add-on rules, and specific positioning constraints that affect how an agent should act on the returned data.

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 long but well structured with front-loaded mandatory instructions, headings, and bullet lists. Some details are repetitive, such as repeated emphasis on quoting verbatim and not guessing, but the length is largely justified by the complexity of pricing rules and product positioning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly by documenting each catalog entry field. It also covers alternatives, routing rules, and important product constraints, making the definition complete for an agent to call and use correctly.

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 has zero input parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden; the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description instead explains return-entry fields, which is useful but not relevant to input parameter interpretation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetch the canonical Squish hosting product catalog with up-to-date pricing. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from get_hosting_addons_catalog and get_email_catalog, so an agent can identify its role without inspecting sibling schemas.

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?

It gives explicit usage rules: call before quoting any hosting price, do not guess, and use get_hosting_addons_catalog for VPS add-ons. It also provides positioning rules for common customer asks, including Cloud Custom, the obsolete Starter tier, and Faber by Squish.

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