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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely useful context: the prices are 'from' references in ARS with installment options, are subject to clinical evaluation (not a quote), and include a last-updated date. It stops short of describing format or freshness guarantees.

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?

One front-loaded sentence identifies the returned content first, then qualifies it. Each clause (installment options, disclaimer, updated date) adds information, though the nested parenthetical makes it slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so adequately: price list, installment options, disclaimer text, and last-updated date. It could go further on currency formatting or whether a single clinic's prices are returned.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it does not confuse the empty input surface.

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+resource: it returns the full list of 'from' reference prices in ARS. This is unambiguous against siblings like get_clinic_info, get_faq, or list_treatments, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor any preconditions. The only framing is a disclaimer about the values not being a quote, which hints at scope but does not tell the agent when this is the right tool.

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