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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description is free to add pricing semantics instead: SGD, GST and Singapore delivery included, same-day to 5-day rush range, and that a deadline filters options with a note when none make it. It also states what is returned (all-in price plus ready-by date), which is needed since there is no output schema. It stops short of saying how quantity affects tiering or whether prices are guaranteed.

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?

Price/scope is front-loaded, then usage, then the sibling redirect, then an example — a sensible order. Minor filler remains ('for staff, offices or events') and the opening sentence is long, but no sentence is wasteful overall.

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 three-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema pricing tool, the description covers what is priced, what comes back, currency and inclusions, rush range, deadline behavior, and where to route everything else. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 applies; the description still adds a concrete example input showing how category and quantity combine, and reinforces that needed_by is a filter rather than a display option. The box-of-100 nuance is left entirely to the schema.

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 gives a specific verb plus return content ('Instant all-in price ... and ready-by date') and names the exact four product families covered, so an agent can match a request without opening the enum. It also explicitly contrasts itself with request_quote, which handles other custom print/merch.

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?

'Use when someone wants these printed or priced' sets the trigger, 'Pass the deadline to see options that make it' sets the behavioral tip, and 'Other custom print and merch goes through request_quote' names the alternative and the condition that selects it. There is nothing left to infer.

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