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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the description correctly spends its budget elsewhere: it discloses the pricing formula (1.65x per step from $30, no cap) and the fact that the optional `until` produces an accumulated royalty figure. That formula and the 'no cap' caveat are genuine behavioral context an agent could not get from structured fields. It stops short of describing the return shape (e.g. currency units or object fields).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents and then the pricing rule. The long enumeration in the first sentence is dense but each clause carries distinct information about a returned value; nothing is padded or redundant.

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 by listing the four figures returned. The main remaining gap is the concrete shape of the response (field names, currency, whether the optional royalty figure is omitted or zero when `until` is absent).

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by framing `step` as 'one step of any cell' in a rising price ladder and by clarifying that `until` sums the royalty the owner has earned up to that later step, which tells the agent what the optional parameter actually produces rather than just its bounds.

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 names a specific resource (the Canvas64 price model for one step of a cell) and enumerates exactly what the quote contains: price, buyout payout, royalty rate, and optional cumulative royalty. It is clearly a read-only pricing calculator, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like get_cell or get_rules, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to learn what a step costs or what an owner would receive. There is no explicit 'use this when X, use get_cell instead when Y' guidance, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid cell or valid step range (though the schema caps step at 1-60).

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