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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only, informational tool (no side effects), which is inferred from the wording but not explicit. It does not describe what happens if the user is not in a workspace or how the 'domain margin' is calculated, but for a pricing query this is acceptable.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('What Boathouse charges') and then provides key details. No redundant words; every phrase adds value.

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?

The tool is simple (no required params, no output schema), and the description covers the key aspects of pricing. It does not mention pagination or return format, but those are not critical for a pricing inquiry. It is complete enough for an agent to call it confidently, though it could briefly note that it returns cost-related information.

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%, meaning the parameter 'workspace' is fully described in the input schema. The description does not need to add much, but it does not clarify how workspace affects the pricing information (e.g., does pricing vary by workspace?). This is a minor gap, but the 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?

The description clearly states the purpose: it explains what Boathouse charges, specifying the pricing structure (one org plan, up to five tools, shared limits, storage, domain margin). This is specific and differentiates it from billing, topup, and usage siblings.

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 description implies this is for understanding pricing, but does not explicitly say when to use it versus 'billing' (which might be for invoices/payments) or 'usage' (for resource consumption). No exclusions or alternatives are named, leaving some ambiguity.

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