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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: results are verbatim from the business's records, and gaps surface as on_file=false. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or currency/format handling, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 tight sentences: the first defines scope and fidelity of the data, the second defines the gap-handling contract. Everything is front-loaded and nothing is 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?

For a read-only single-parameter fetch with no output schema, the description adequately compensates by naming the three returned content classes (prices, fees, cancellation terms) and the on_file=false sentinel. Only minor details, such as the shape of the returned structures or currency handling, are left unstated.

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% and the single operator_id parameter is fully documented in-schema, including its provenance from canopy_check_bookable or resolve_business. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource set: prices of a Canopy business's bookable services, its fees, and its cancellation terms. The phrase 'exactly as the business has them on file' further pins down the data source, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like resolve_business or canopy_check_bookable.

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 gives strong downstream handling guidance (when data is missing, tell the customer it is not on file and never estimate), but never says when to call this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites exist. Usage is implied by the tool's obvious role rather than stated explicitly.

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