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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, it discloses the key non-obvious trait that this saves nothing and that only a subsequent save_deal_commercials repeating the returned conversion and unitAmountMicros commits a charge. It also discloses the dependency on the workspace exchange-rate policy and the no-current-rate behavior.

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?

Well front-loaded: what it returns comes first, followed by when to use it and the no-side-effect caveat. It is somewhat dense and the CRM-untrusted-content sentence is boilerplate, but each sentence carries substantive information.

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 preview with no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so partially by enumerating the conversion fields and unitAmountMicros. It covers side effects, fallbacks and currency policy, leaving only fine-grained response formatting unspecified.

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 low (25%), so the description should compensate, but it explains only the currency concept (target currency and its conversion), not dealId or productId beyond their self-descriptive names. workspaceId is documented only in the schema. It adds marginal meaning over the parameter names themselves.

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 ('Returns a product's catalogue (list) price') and details the exact payload, including the conversion preview fields (source, target, exchange rate, date) when currencies differ. It is clearly distinguishable from the write-oriented sibling save_deal_commercials, which it names.

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 an explicit inclusion rule ('Use it only when the user wants the catalogue price'), names the alternative that actually changes price (save_deal_commercials), and prescribes fallbacks when no rate exists ('add the product for reference or enter the agreed price'). When, when-not and alternatives are all present.

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