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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'No email needed and nothing is saved,' and adds the non-obvious limitation that corner layouts cannot be priced accurately here. Return format is covered by the output schema, so this is close to complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the answer and the cost trigger, then the routing constraint, then the example. It is longer than average but nearly every clause carries distinct information; only the example is arguably verbose for a schema that already enumerates the fields.

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 pricing tool with a rich schema and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the trigger, the no-side-effect guarantee, the layout limitation with a redirect, and a concrete valid payload. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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, but the canonical worked example (a 120-inch straight island with a 36" Alfresco grill and four cabinets) shows how the parameters actually combine, including the grillModelId/grillBrand pairing, which is more than the schema alone conveys.

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 ('Return the MSRP for a straight outdoor kitchen') and enumerates exactly what is priced: cabinets, appliances, countertop, plus a total. It also implicitly separates this from the designer and quote siblings by naming the straight-only scope.

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 trigger ('Call whenever the user asks what an outdoor kitchen or BBQ island would cost') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative: for Galley, Corner L or Corner 45, 'give the straight price as a guide and send the shopper to the designer.' Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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