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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: each range is the buyer's own formula checked against a live page on a stated date, no figure is Dataconto's own, and the tool also returns other listed buyers not ruled out. It does not discuss caching or staleness of the checked pages, keeping it from a 5.

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 core action and the three buyers, then the caveats, then the optional offer behavior. Sentences are dense and slightly run-on ('Each range is the buyer's formula, checked against its live page on the date given'), but every clause carries information 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return shape, and it does: per-buyer ranges plus a list of other buyers not ruled out. Combined with the 100%-covered input schema and the read-only annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the exact response structure and error behavior (e.g., Grepped returning no figure) are left implicit.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains why records matter (Grepped needs them to price) and what offer_usd/offer_from do (place a received offer against each range and the offering buyer's published range). That is genuine semantic value on top of already-complete field descriptions.

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: it runs three named buyers' published estimators and returns their ranges for a company's records. The scope caveat ('none is an offer and Dataconto adds no figure of its own') sharpens what the output is. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like fit_check or get_buyer, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives conditional guidance on inputs ('Grepped prices from the kinds of records held, so pass records for its figure' and 'Pass offer_usd (and offer_from) to place an offer...'), which implies when the optional parameters matter. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus fit_check, code_value, or get_buyer, so tool-selection guidance is only implied.

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