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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds important behavioral context: rates include product_name, description, and a token; totals are indicative; and preview_order must be called for the authoritative breakdown. This goes beyond the safety profile and tells the agent how to interpret and act on the results.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides tightly scoped guidance. Every sentence adds actionable information; there is no restatement of the tool name or schema fields without added value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully explained. Still, the description usefully mentions the rate fields and token semantics, the indicative-total caveat, and the preview_order dependency, making the definition complete for correct invocation and downstream workflow.

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 description coverage is 75%, so baseline is 3. The description adds useful meaning for operator_id (comes from get_operator_service_types) and q (keyword search on descriptions with an example), though the lang parameter remains unexplained in both schema and description.

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: 'Get live pricing for an operator.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling operations by noting that returned tokens feed preview_order/create_order and that preview_order is required for authoritative totals.

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 explicitly says to use operator_id from get_operator_service_types for the chosen service type, recommends q for description searches with an example, and directs the agent to call preview_order before user confirmation. These are clear when-to-use and when-to-defer instructions involving named alternatives.

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