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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: it returns a plan plus a CHF total, and that amount is pre-VAT. It stops short of stating that this is a pure read-only calculation with no side effects, and says nothing about rate limits or permissions.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no filler. The parameter enumeration in the second half is dense but each clause earns its place by defining an input.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out; the description still usefully previews that the answer is a plan plus a CHF pre-VAT total. For a three-parameter calculation tool this is close to complete, missing only routing guidance against get_offer.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does, glossing all three params: simultaneous_connections ('at peak'), slices_per_month (defined as 'slices of 1000 bars'), and continuous_symbols ('symbols followed live continuously'). The unit clarification for 'slice' is genuinely valuable, though the required/optional distinction and the default of 0 for continuous_symbols are left to the schema.

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 ('Price') and a concrete scope ('a month of usage') and enumerates the three cost drivers. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_offer, which an agent could plausibly reach for on a similar pricing task.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the overlapping get_offer sibling. Usage must be inferred purely from the described inputs.

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