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

readOnlyHint already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's burden is lighter, and it does add the return shape: a median price plus the n closest models, which the agent would not otherwise know since there is no output schema. It does not discuss tie-breaking, ordering of the nearest-n list, or whether prices are normalized across scopes, but those are secondary for an aggregation read.

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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the definition before the gloss. Nothing is redundant, though the trailing cross-reference to cheapest_models is a dangling pointer that only helps if the agent already knows that sibling's signature.

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?

For a read-only aggregation tool with a fully documented four-parameter schema, this is sufficient: purpose, result composition, and parameter delegation are all covered. No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned median and nearest-n models.

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 100%, with both enums and the component/n defaults documented inline, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds only the delegation 'Same arguments as cheapest_models', which actually forces the agent to consult another tool rather than adding semantics here. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 computation on a specific resource: the median current price of a job across models, plus the n models nearest it. The parenthetical '(task)' and the closing 'what a normal price for this job is' make the resource unambiguous, and the contrast with 'cheapest' is implicit in the sibling name it cites. It falls short of a 5 only because it never explicitly says how it differs from dearest_models or cheapest_models beyond the word 'median'.

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?

The phrase 'what a normal price for this job is' implies the use case (establishing a typical/market price rather than a floor), and citing 'Same arguments as cheapest_models' points to a related tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus cheapest_models/dearest_models, no stated exclusions, and no guidance on when the median is preferable to a min or range query.

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